Kelper & Tycho - how did they come to their conclusions?

ps200306

gkell11 wrote: »

These visual narratives bring the insights of the old astronomers to life and alter their views when necessary however these are just small steps along the journey .

Could you please, PLEASE, start another thread and give us a choice of whether we want to join your bloody journey. Six pages just so you could condescend to tell us that Venus has phases. This one really is a case of "stop the world I want to get off".

gkell11

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are comically wrong. The synodic period of Venus is 584 days, of which it is in retrograde for only 41 days. If your lunatic notions were correct, Venus would be in retrograde half the time, instead of less than one tenth.

As for "quadrature", the term means when a body is at right angles to the direction of the Sun.

Venus and Mercury cannot reach quadrature seen from Earth.

http://artsandstars.ens-lyon.fr/venus/the-transit-of-venus/2Transit2012_phases.png?lang=en

Any questions ?.

gkell11

ps200306 wrote: »

Could you please, PLEASE, start another thread and give us a choice of whether we want to join your bloody journey. Six pages just so you could condescend to tell us that Venus has phases. This one really is a case of "stop the world I want to get off".

If you can't handle retrogrades and especially retrogrades over long periods then don't read these posts ,for everyone else they can match up Kepler's long term observation of the motion of Mars including retrogrades as the Earth overtakes that planet with contemporary imaging -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120809.html

At least now observers are aware of the difference of perspectives when looking at the inner and outer planets from a moving Earth and how the original heliocentric astronomers got their conclusions right when dealing with outer planetary retrogrades based on a faster Earth overtaking them causing them to fall behind in view.

The next thing you know you will be begging for the firewall of moderation.

ps200306

I give up.

Zubeneschamali

gkell11 wrote: »

http://artsandstars.ens-lyon.fr/venus/the-transit-of-venus/2Transit2012_phases.png?lang=en

To quote yourself back to you:

Now all you have to do is account for the Earth's orbital motion into those observations

And if you ever figure out how to do that, you'll get the results I posted already, which you think are ridiculous (Venus is the blue one with the girly symbol in the animation):

http://www.davidcolarusso.com/astro/

Any chance you'll tell us your stopwatch method? I very much doubt that it shows what you think it shows, but presumably you didn't come up with it yourself, so it might show something interesting.

gkell11

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To quote yourself back to you:

Now all you have to do is account for the Earth's orbital motion into those observations

And if you ever figure out how to do that, you'll get the results I posted already, which you think are ridiculous (Venus is the blue one with the girly symbol in the animation):

http://www.davidcolarusso.com/astro/

Any chance you'll tell us your stopwatch method? I very much doubt that it shows what you think it shows, but presumably you didn't come up with it yourself, so it might show something interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

Some students will get excited with the visual challenge where Mercury and Venus re-emerge from behind the central Sun and move to their widest point before swinging back in front of the Sun.

Another challenge is to account for the orbital motion of the Earth which enters that YouTube time lapse graphic as the apparent motion of ElNath, Castor and Pollux in sequence behind the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ

So,combining the two visual narratives where the orbital motion of the Earth sets up the central Sun as a reference for the orbital motion of the inner planets and modifying the work of the original heliocentric astronomers who give us the wonderful explanation for outer planetary retrogrades using only their imagination. We live in a privileged era where all this imaging and graphics goes largely unused or even distorted as that rubbish link you posted demonstrates.

The original astronomers were faced with difficulties that I haven't even touched upon yet however any movement forward with these issues now look remote. I think the efforts of people to show the graceful loop of Venus and its phases are remarkable even without the introduction of the Earth's orbital motion into the picture but I am hopeful that observers will go outside and be considerate when they look at Venus close to the Sun in either the evening or the morning depending on the orbital position of Venus either side of the Sun from our perspective.

Zubeneschamali

gkell11 wrote: »

Another challenge is to account for the orbital motion of the Earth

Let us know when you understand why this means your idea of Venus being in retrograde for half the time is wrong.

Hint:
Planet: Mercury
Synodic period in days: 116
Days in retrograde: ~21

Planet: Venus
Synodic Period in days: 584
Days in retrograde: 41

Synodic period

When two bodies orbit a third body in different orbits, and thus different orbital periods, their respective, synodic period can be found. If the orbital periods of the two bodies around the third are called and , so that , their synodic period is given by

gkell11

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Let us know when you understand why this means your idea of Venus being in retrograde for half the time is wrong.

Back to the complete set of phases displayed by Venus and especially from the period across the quadratures where Venus is at right angles to the Earth with the Sun as central reference for that angle -

http://www.popastro.com/images/planetary/observations/Venus-July%202010-January%202012.jpg

That is all observers are going to see and it should be second nature by now for any true lovers of the celestial arena along with our motion and position in it. The student or interested adult is brought out in the evening or morning and shown what Venus is doing or is going to do as it moves out to its widest point and swings in either behind the Sun (this is a morning perspective) or swing out and back in front of the Sun (evening perspective).

The next step, at least when beginning the proof for variable orbital speed within a week, is using the seasonal apparent motion of the stars behind the Sun and the same observation that sets the Sun up as a central reference for the grandstand view of Venus. Venus will always travel half its orbit against the background stars and the other half with the stars and although I know it takes a little effort to get used to the observation,it is there regardless in that Sky and Telescope YouTube graphic.

One of the oldest observations is the use of the seasonal appearance of a background star as it emerges from the glare of the Sun to define the year however,in dynamical terms, that observation defines the orbital position of the Earth in space. Again ,the only YouTube graphic available to express this fact wouldn't normally be fit for purpose but here it is anyway along with the seasonal appearance of that specific star at the bottom left of the image -

http://www.gautschy.ch/~rita/archast/sirius/heliacsirius.JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ

Without the affirmation that the Earth's orbital motion causes the stars to disappear behind the glare of the Sun and as a backdrop to resolving the retrogrades of the inner planet, a trip down that particular path is impossible.

There are so many visual narratives which challenge the mind to productive and worthwhile ends but unfortunately the 'hard sums' crowd have managed to convince the rest of the world that they represent the methods and insights of the original astronomers. Pity that nobody has the intellectual mettle to move forward but then again unfamiliarity with the process the original astronomers used is part of the difficulties.

Zubeneschamali

gkell11 wrote: »

Venus will always travel half its orbit against the background stars and the other half with the stars

No, it really won't.

As Venus moves through this half orbit, 112 days when you think it should be moving backwards against the stars, the Earth moves forwards 1/3 of an orbit. When Venus finishes it's year of 225 days, the Earth has moved 2/3 of an orbit, changing the stars behind Venus completely.

It takes 584 days for Venus to track back in our skies to the same point, not one Venus year as your pictures suggest, and it only tracks backward for 41 of those days, as it passes the Earth.

This is an observational fact. Ptolemy knew it a thousand years before Kepler, and set the epicycle of Venus running at 584 days to account for it.

gkell11

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it really won't.

As Venus moves through this half orbit, 112 days when you think it should be moving backwards against the stars, the Earth moves forwards 1/3 of an orbit. When Venus finishes it's year of 225 days, the Earth has moved 2/3 of an orbit, changing the stars behind Venus completely.

It takes 584 days for Venus to track back in our skies to the same point, not one Venus year as your pictures suggest, and it only tracks backward for 41 of those days, as it passes the Earth.

This is an observational fact. Ptolemy knew it a thousand years before Kepler, and set the epicycle of Venus running at 584 days to account for it.

You are fine,what you have to do is go outside and look at the beautiful lunar phase at the moment and you can figure out where the moon is in relation to its orbital position around the Earth and to the central Sun. The phases of Venus are even easier as a means to pinpoint the orbital position of that planet as it is seen to move directly around the Sun. Sure the Earth is moving and that delays when Venus reaches its widest point before it swings in front of the Sun or behind the Sun but a normal person exercising a little consideration will figure that out.

So you can all set aside the meaningless looping motion you previously displayed of Venus without its phase change and size increase which has no rhyme nor reason to it but rather enjoy the spectacle where Venus progressively gets larger in size as it approaches our orbit at the closest point and then diminishes as it overtakes us and move away in its circuit around the Sun.

http://astronomer.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/phases_of_venus.jpg

Pity I never got to explain how to tell the planet moves faster or slower each day with a week long enough to convey the observation but that sometimes happens. The apparent motion of the stars behind the Sun are the crucial reference needed to begin the explanation while the same observation ties in with the retrogrades of Venus. That is all and I made this point before without having to repeat it any longer.

ps200306

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it really won't.

As Venus moves through this half orbit, 112 days when you think it should be moving backwards against the stars, the Earth moves forwards 1/3 of an orbit. When Venus finishes it's year of 225 days, the Earth has moved 2/3 of an orbit, changing the stars behind Venus completely.

It takes 584 days for Venus to track back in our skies to the same point, not one Venus year as your pictures suggest, and it only tracks backward for 41 of those days, as it passes the Earth.

This is an observational fact. Ptolemy knew it a thousand years before Kepler, and set the epicycle of Venus running at 584 days to account for it.

gkell11 wrote: »

You are fine,what you have to do is go outside and look at the beautiful lunar phase at the moment and you can figure out where the moon is in relation to its orbital position around the Earth and to the central Sun. The phases of Venus are even easier as a means to pinpoint the orbital position of that planet as it is seen to move directly around the Sun. Sure the Earth is moving and that delays when Venus reaches its widest point before it swings in front of the Sun or behind the Sun but a normal person exercising a little consideration will figure that out.

Previously you said that we have to use modern tools for visualising what's going on, now when it doesn't work out you're saying you have to go out and see it in the night sky for yourself, then "exercise a little consideration". Seriously, all you have said in the last eight pages is that Venus has phases. The rest has been nonsense. That is fact, not flame.

gkell11 wrote: »

So you can all set aside the meaningless looping motion you previously displayed of Venus without its phase change and size increase which has no rhyme nor reason to it but rather enjoy the spectacle where Venus progressively gets larger in size as it approaches our orbit at the closest point and then diminishes as it overtakes us and move away in its circuit around the Sun.

Once again, we are now to "enjoy the spectacle" and not worry about all that looping crap where it moves against the background stars completely differently to how you claimed. I quote:

gkell11 wrote: »

The grandstand view of an inner planet's orbit does require an explanation as to where the Earth's orbital motion factors in hence the delicate means to set the central Sun as a reference by shifting the older perspective used by the original heliocentric astronomers in terms of the motion of the Sun through the background stars to the more productive apparent motion of the stars behind the stationary Sun. It is a challenge but one made easy with these new tools.

gkell11 wrote: »

No point in dwelling on that YouTube graphic you posted of Venus without phases and a ridiculous periodic looping motion it does not have.

gkell11 wrote: »

So,is everyone clear on the fact that we see Venus make a circuit of the Sun and there is no illusion involved as with the outer planets where they fall temporarily behind in view against the background stars .

gkell11 wrote: »

The only rule readers have to appreciate is that when looking at the inner planets from an outer planet are that phases mesh with the closed loop of retrogrades as the inner planets move from their widest point of their orbits seen from Earth and move either behind the Sun or in front of the Sun.

These facts are here to stay and sorry if you imagine that Earth will behave as the NASA graphic imagines as that shows no consideration for what actually happens.

Well I'm going to take you up on your original offer of using modern tools, and see whether it behaves exactly as Zubeneschamali said in the top quote above. Just so that anyone who cares to follow it can reproduce it themselves, here's a view in Stellarium showing Venus emerging from behind the Sun in late October 2014:



In this Stellarium view I have turned off the ground and atmosphere, and switched on the equatorial grid (blue lines), ecliptic (red line) and horizon (green line). Venus is selected (red cross-hairs) so that it always remains in the centre of the view. You can read off its Right Acension (circled in red, top left) or roughly from the hour lines (circled, top centre), and can read the date, circled at bottom right.

Now all you have to do is hold your finger down on the + key to advance the date one day at a time, and watch Venus fly against the background stars. Ignore the Sun and watch what Venus does against the hour lines. Here's some very rough measurements I read off:

• 23-Oct-2014, Venus behind Sun, RA 14h. Moves in prograde until:
• 23-Jul-2015, stationary point at RA 10h. Moves in retrograde until:
• 04-Sep-2015, stationary point at RA 08h. Moves in prograde until:
• 07-Jun-2016, Venus behind sun, RA 05h

Excel tells me that's a synodic period of 593 days, with 43 days of retrograde motion, and the rest in prograde -- the same as Zubeneschamali said within the accuracy of my rough screen reading.

For a different type of view, uncentre Venus and drag the Stellarium view so that the ecliptic appears as a flat line. Now hold your finger down on Alt/+ to advance by one sideral day at a time, so that the celestial sphere and the equatorial grid remain motionless. Now Venus chases along the ecliptic, showing exactly the short looping retrogrades of those NASA pictures.

For yet another perspective, drag the view curvature so that the ecliptic appears as a complete circle. Once again advance by sidereal days. Mercury and Venus show exactly the same sort of retrograde loops as Mars, just at a faster pace. To an actual observer, of course, the entire retrograde motion of Venus would not be observable since it passes in front of the sun during that period. Score another one for modern tools.

gkell11

ps200306 wrote: »

Previously you said that we have to use modern tools for visualising what's going on, now when it doesn't work out you're saying you have to go out and see it in the night sky for yourself, then "exercise a little consideration". Seriously, all you have said in the last eight pages is that Venus has phases. The rest has been nonsense. That is fact, not flame.

This is not rocket science, the phases and size increase as Venus approaches our orbit at the closest point is basically a spectacular affirmation that Venus is traveling around the Sun faster than we are and in a closer orbit to the Sun . You can post all the celestial sphere images of the Sun occupying the same observation as Venus as you like but the only time the Sun and Venus occupy the same observation is a transit which gives perspective to not only the relative size of planet to the central star but also its phase -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7U5VbasKr4

If you want to be an astronomer then get used to all the other factors which attend the facts that all planets go around the Sun and the methods used by the original astronomers including modern improvements which partition inner and outer planets by perspective and by conclusion.

Don't come back to me with stupid images of the Sun in the same arena as the stars unless you are posting an image of a solar eclipse.

ps200306

gkell11 wrote: »

This is not rocket science, the phases and size increase as Venus approaches our orbit at the closest point is basically a spectacular affirmation that Venus is traveling around the Sun faster than we are and in a closer orbit to the Sun .

Yeah, we know that. You've been banging on about it since page one.

gkell11 wrote: »

Don't come back to me with stupid images of the Sun in the same arena as the stars unless you are posting an image of a solar eclipse.

So, no modern tools allowed (again). Are we back in 1601 then (the year of Tycho's death and the end of the period of the observations relevant to the OP's question), at which time nobody had ever observed the phases of Venus?

Why do I get the impression I'm just feeding a troll? Especially since you've just accused me on a completely unrelated thread of "crimes against astronomy".

gkell11

ps200306 wrote: »

So, no modern tools allowed (again). Are we back in 1601 then (the year of Tycho's death and the end of the period of the observations relevant to the OP's question), at which time nobody had ever observed the phases of Venus?

People know full well about the phases of Venus and what they represent so that gets rid of the silly looping motions out of context however in addition to this they may start to appreciate the increase in size as the inner planet approaches us just as Galileo did -

http://www.popastro.com/images/planetary/observations/Venus-July%202010-January%202012.jpg

The luminosity increase which should attend the increase in size is negated by the phases and Galileo,as the first person to expand this approach, was amazed that Copernicus accounted for the relative stable luminosity while the planet's size varies -


"But the telescope plainly shows us its horns to be as bounded and
distinct as those of the moon, and they are seen to belong to a very
large circle, in a ratio almost forty times as great as the same disc
when it is beyond the sun, toward the end of its morning appearances.

SAGR. 0 Nicholas Copernicus, what a pleasure it would have been for
you to see this part of your system confirmed by so clear an
experiment!

SALV. Yes, but how much less would his sublime intellect be celebrated
among the learned! For as I said before, we may see that with reason
as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible
experience seemed to contradict. I cannot get over my amazement that
he was constantly willing to persist in saying that Venus might go
around the sun and be more than six times as far from us at one time
as at another, and still look always equal, when it should have
appeared forty times larger."

Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, 1632


Where are the 'learned' today ?. These men made successful conclusions without the aid of imaging such as that one above yet I have yet to see a few other readers affirm what the great astronomers could. The issue of apparent retrogrades of Venus and Mercury can be separated from the conclusive proof that Venus orbits the Sun as that is just a step further down the road.

Zubeneschamali

ps200306 wrote: »

Excel tells me that's a synodic period of 593 days, with 43 days of retrograde motion, and the rest in prograde -- the same as Zubeneschamali said within the accuracy of my rough screen reading.

The ridiculous thing is that not only was this not news to Kepler and Tycho, it wasn't even news to Ptolemy, who set the epicycle of Venus in his system to 584 days to account for what he observed.

gkell, who has been pontificating about his new approach, knows less about the retrogrades of inferior planets than Ptolemy.

Zubeneschamali

gkell11 wrote: »

Don't come back to me with stupid images of the Sun in the same arena as the stars unless you are posting an image of a solar eclipse.

Back on the topic of the thread, Kepler was able to predict the transit of Venus, allowing it to be observed for the first time in history. Even though that is a "stupid" example of the Sun in the same arena as Venus.

Because unlike you, he understood retrogrades.

Kepler's predictions were good, but still a bit off. From wikipedia:

In 1627, Johannes Kepler became the first person to predict a transit of Venus, by predicting the 1631 event. His methods were not sufficiently accurate to predict that the transit would not be visible in most of Europe, and as a consequence, nobody was able to use his prediction to observe the phenomenon.[15]
The first recorded observation of a transit of Venus was made by Jeremiah Horrocks from his home at Carr House in Much Hoole, near Preston in England, on 4 December 1639 (24 November under the Julian calendar then in use in England). His friend, William Crabtree, also observed this transit from Broughton, near Manchester.[16] Kepler had predicted transits in 1631 and 1761 and a near miss in 1639. Horrocks corrected Kepler's calculation for the orbit of Venus, realized that transits of Venus would occur in pairs 8 years apart, and so predicted the transit of 1639.[17] Although he was uncertain of the exact time, he calculated that the transit was to begin at approximately 15:00. Horrocks focused the image of the Sun through a simple telescope onto a piece of paper, where the image could be safely observed. After observing for most of the day, he was lucky to see the transit as clouds obscuring the Sun cleared at about 15:15, just half an hour before sunset. Horrocks' observations allowed him to make a well-informed guess as to the size of Venus, as well as to make an estimate of the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun — the astronomical unit. He estimated that distance to be 59.4 million miles (95.6 Gm, 0.639 AU) – about two thirds of the actual distance of 93 million miles (149.6 million km), but a more accurate figure than any suggested up to that time. The observations were not published until 1661, well after Horrocks's death.[17]

N.B. Hard sums were involved in the predictions.

gkell11

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

gkell, who has been pontificating about his new approach, knows less about the retrogrades of inferior planets than Ptolemy.

I only discuss ideas so I have to withdraw as nobody is pleasantly surprised that the proof for the orbital motion of the Earth along with the other planets involves multiple different perspectives using many different things such as phase changes, size and luminosity variations, different types of retrogrades,relative motions between planets,relative motions to the central Sun and plenty of other enjoyable elements that delight the mind.

It may be fine for celestial sphere addicts to posts meaningless loops of Venus without any physical considerations but the idea is always to move along the road where variable orbital speeds can be extracted from observations. The telescope introduced multiple new ways to appreciate that the Earth moves through space and that the planets move around the Sun so showing dots against a celestial sphere might entertain you and the other guy but it is hardly astronomy.

There is always a means to introduce the firewall of moderation and that is expected but in the meantime you too can grow in understanding in the same way Galileo adapted his view to the motions of Venus as it swings in behind the Sun as a morning appearance .Go ahead and read his descriptions which is satisfying and more challenging than any book readers get this Christmas -

http://www.popastro.com/images/planetary/observations/Venus-July%202010-January%202012.jpg

The luminosity increase which should attend the increase in size is negated by the phases and Galileo,as the first person to expand this approach, was amazed that Copernicus accounted for the relative stable luminosity while the planet's size varies -


"But the telescope plainly shows us its horns to be as bounded and
distinct as those of the moon, and they are seen to belong to a very
large circle, in a ratio almost forty times as great as the same disc
when it is beyond the sun, toward the end of its morning appearances.

SAGR. 0 Nicholas Copernicus, what a pleasure it would have been for
you to see this part of your system confirmed by so clear an
experiment!

SALV. Yes, but how much less would his sublime intellect be celebrated
among the learned! For as I said before, we may see that with reason
as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible
experience seemed to contradict. I cannot get over my amazement that
he was constantly willing to persist in saying that Venus might go
around the sun and be more than six times as far from us at one time
as at another, and still look always equal, when it should have
appeared forty times larger." Galileo Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, 1632

Announcing to the forum that we don't see Venus at quadrature mightn't have been the best thing to do but I forgive you by virtue that you don't have a feel for the same observations of Venus that we have and expressed by Galileo.

Zubeneschamali

gkell11 wrote: »

There is always a means to introduce the firewall of moderation and that is expected

You keep saying this, but no-one has threatened to report you.

If you keep spamming us with pictures and links you already posted, and dodging the complete destruction of your mad ideas, someone will report you, and with your site-ban re-reg dodging history of being a complete crackpot, you'll be history. Again.

So behave.

gkell11

Walking along the Boyne today in the footsteps of the great astronomers who built Newgrange and the community that supported them is a long way from the 'stolen honor' of this era where observers won't even follow in the footsteps of the great astronomers even with the aid of visual tools of the 21st century.

http://www.popastro.com/images/planetary/observations/Venus-July%202010-January%202012.jpg

The left side of the Sun Venus is when is an evening planet while the right side it turns into a morning planet as it moves to that side of the Sun from our point of view.

From its widest point as seen from Earth and as it moves behind the Sun, Venus will move against the direction of the background stars so that from its widest point to widest point turning in front of the Sun it moves in the direction of the background stars. Retrogrades haven't been touched since Copernicus first explained the apparent retrogrades of the outer planets using relative motions and a faster Earth so the real astronomical achievement of 2014 is the work done on inner planetary retrogrades. There is so much going on that it is understandable why the original heliocentric astronomers didn't provide a detailed solution.

I look at the 'Looking up in 2015' thread and there is not the slightest sign of the type of astronomy I practice but rather very weak observations regarding the proximity of objects to one another so no surprises that the use of all sorts of observations to explain solar system structure, the Earth's own motions and cause and effect finds a hostile reception. The stolen honor where these empirical voodoo chanters and bluffers hijacked astronomy and turned it into a tangled mess has parallels elsewhere but certainly the inability to appreciate the visual narratives and use them is probably the most obvious sign of pretension. As a Christian, I love Oscar Wilde's comments on those who don't have that spirit necessary to be an astronomer in the sense that a genuine astronomer exercises an expanded version of their normal judgments of motions of objects at a human level and scales them up to planetary scales.

"As regards the other subject, the Relation of the Artistic Life to
Conduct, it will no doubt seem strange to you that I should select it.
People point to Reading Gaol and say, 'That is where the artistic life
leads a man.' Well, it might lead to worse places. The more mechanical
people to whom life is a shrewd speculation depending on a careful
calculation of ways and means, always know where they are going, and
go there. They start with the ideal desire of being the parish beadle,
and in whatever sphere they are placed they succeed in being the
parish beadle and no more. A man whose desire is to be something
separate from himself, to be a member of Parliament, or a successful
grocer, or a prominent solicitor, invariably succeeds in being what he wants
to be. That is his punishment. Those who want a mask have to wear it."

"But with the dynamic forces of life, and those in whom those dynamic
forces become incarnate, it is different. People whose desire is
solely for self-realisation never know where they are going. They
can't know. In one sense of the word it is of course necessary, as the
Greek oracle said, to know oneself: that is the first achievement of
knowledge. But to recognise that the soul of a man is unknowable, is
the ultimate achievement of wisdom. The final mystery is oneself. When
one has weighed the sun in the balance, and measured the steps of the
moon, and mapped out the seven heavens star by star, there still
remains oneself. ". Oscar Wilde


The connection between the individual and the Universal in physical terms is not only sacred but an enjoyable journey for those willing to make the effort to move things along and even change the path forward when necessary, something which once enthralled all astronomers.

Zubeneschamali

gkell11 wrote: »

From its widest point as seen from Earth and as it moves behind the Sun, Venus will move against the direction of the background stars so that from its widest point to widest point turning in front of the Sun it moves in the direction of the background stars

If you insist on fixing the Sun in the sky and moving the background stars, then what happens is that the stars move at a pretty steady pace, while Venus tracks backwards and forwards around the position of the Sun.

Before you start claiming that this is what you said - no, it isn't.

Because the stars are passing Venus in the same direction as they pass the Sun for 543 days of the 584 days it takes for Venus to return to the same position in the sky. They pass more slowly at times, and faster at others: but always the same direction, except during a "ridiculous loop".

You can see this in your May Dance graphic, where Mercury reaches maximum elongation and then starts to approach the Sun/horizon, but not as fast as the stars approach it.

This is what the Nasa graphic of Earth seen from Mars was trying to explain to you: if an observer on Earth sees Mars pull a loop against the background stars, it follows that an observer on Mars must see Earth do something similar against the opposite side of the ecliptic (which must contain the Sun, as Mars it at opposition).

But at least you have stopped saying Quadrature.

gkell11

ps200306 wrote: »

Previously you said that we have to use modern tools for visualising what's going on, now when it doesn't work out you're saying you have to go out and see it in the night sky for yourself, then "exercise a little consideration". Seriously, all you have said in the last eight pages is that Venus has phases. The rest has been nonsense. That is fact, not flame.

I chose the word 'consideration' deliberately as its etymology is astronomically based -

"consider (v.) Look up consider at Dictionary.com late 14c., from Old French considerer (13c.) "reflect on, consider, study," from Latin considerare "to look at closely, observe," perhaps literally "to observe the stars," from com- "with" (see com-) + sidus (genitive sideris) "constellation" (see sidereal). "

I have shown you Venus making a circuit of the Sun rather than its phases which,after all, are only an integral part of that planet's motion from a grandstand view so that observers who dwell on the matter or 'consider' it as all astronomers do will realize there is only one observed closed loop when observed from the Earth along with its size increase as it approaches or recedes from our planet.

You live in an RA/Dec celestial sphere bubble universe and that too takes quite some explaining as the system is calendar based and does not function for extracting actual motions from different perspectives - that is a really long story but a really interesting one when the right people to have shown up.

Again, these threads are so rare and the audience is presently so small for using visual tools to create a narrative of planetary motion,solar system structure and especially cause/effect as the Earth turns and moves through space. It beats exceptionally weak notions of the relationship of celestial objects to each other and although that exercise might entertain a few magnification people it really doesn't constitute astronomy proper.

So 'consideration' and being considerate is the mark of an astronomer so at least you know where you stand by your own judgement.

ps200306

gkell11 wrote: »

Again, these threads are so rare and the audience is presently so small...

The threads would be less rare if you started your own instead of hijacking others. There is nothing to stop you doing that, and garnering your own audience. What do you hope to gain from posting the same comments and images over and over again? Just so you don't act all surprised and upset about the "firewall of moderation" again, I'm putting you on notice that I've started reporting all your posts for trolling.

gkell11

ps200306 wrote: »

The threads would be less rare if you started your own instead of hijacking others. There is nothing to stop you doing that, and garnering your own audience. What do you hope to gain from posting the same comments and images over and over again? Just so you don't act all surprised and upset about the "firewall of moderation" again, I'm putting you on notice that I've started reporting all your posts for trolling.

Of course you did for what else were you going to do,after all, the sign of a cult is always to keep the unthinking mind insulated from anything that disturbs the elevated sense people get by being in an elite or superior group. I came here knowing that there is only a very small window of opportunity to search for that type of person who is surprised at just how close to their normal judgments the discoveries of the original heliocentric astronomers are and in some cases,due to the availability of better imaging and tools, new insights can be added easily.

The antidote to the voodoo and bluffing dumped into the celestial arena as 'astronomy' is to actually get the mind moving again with as much visual imaging as possible so that observers are grounded in their normal judgments of motions of objects in space leaving the troublesome difference between time and timekeeping when more experience and familiarity are present.

It is not possible to deal with people who can conjure observations out of thin air for no other reason than common sense is the one thing they lack in all matters where the celestial arena is involved. In this case, your community, such as it is, has more parallels with Orwell than Wells -

"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell

People do not have a right to destroy the methods and insights of the great astronomers by distorting what they say or burying their thoughts altogether to serve an agenda or a conclusion for I know all too well the effort and sacrifice needed to produce something that enthralls the observer using their normal ability to understand perspectives of moving objects.

I don't care if I am moderated out of existence as this is a public forum until the day comes when it shows itself to be a mouthpiece for a particular agenda and a dangerous/disruptive cult.

ps200306

gkell11 wrote: »

Of course you did for what else were you going to do,after all, the sign of a cult is always to keep the unthinking mind insulated from anything that disturbs the elevated sense people get by being in an elite or superior group... I don't care if I am moderated out of existence as this is a public forum until the day comes when it shows itself to be a mouthpiece for a particular agenda and a dangerous/disruptive cult.

The internet is awash with crackpots peddling theories they claim are being suppressed by dark forces. They are ready to play the victim at the drop of a hat. You're no different, although you're less coherent than most. You've already started trolling a second thread, so I'm not going to encourage you any further, although it's too tempting not to mention that your claimed enthusiasm for "visual imaging" diminishes dramatically when it doesn't show what you want it to.

Zubeneschamali

ps200306 wrote: »

They are ready to play the victim at the drop of a hat.

While gkell has been banned under some account names like Orion36, I think he usually just closes his own account in order to pretend he was silenced, like gkell1, gkell2, gkell3, and orion216.

Bye, gkell11, see you next year as gkell12 or Orion426. Don't forget the thing you learned about quadratures this time!

I took a look to see when this craziness started, and found this quote from 2011:

gkell1 wrote: »

I have dealt with the empirical cult for near a decade now

So, quite some time ago, apparently!

And now I see links to account oriel36, both here on boards and on Usenet, where Gerald has been widely mocked and shunned.

Popoutman

Gkell_whatever_your_account_is_now:

Venus and Mercury can never reach quadrature from Earth.
They can never be 90 degrees from the sun as seen from Earth.
The outer planets reach quadrature twice per apparent revolution, once to the east and once to the west of the Sun, and at this stage those planets show the minimum phase possible. I know - I've observed Mars at 86% illuminated at a solar elongation of 90 degrees, and I've seen a phase on Jupiter close to 90 degrees Solar elongation. If you follow Saturn through a year, you can see the planet's shadow on the rings swing from the western side to the eastern side as we look at it as the year progresses, returning to centre as the Sun apparently catches up with the planet in the sky. When Venus is at greatest elongation from the sun, the Earth is at quadrature from Venus, but Venus can never reach quadrature from the Earth.

God, it can so frustrating to have to point out over and over to you the simplest of explanations to things that have been observed for years and that have very well known and understood mechanics behind the observations. Why does understanding elude you so often on these topics that you have such crackpot ideas behind? Why do you continually beat dead horses so poorly? I'd suggest that you take some basic science classes, but I fear that your paranoia about real science may mean that you would not gain any benefit. I'd suggest that you do in fact get educated about these things, lest you continue to appear a poor misguided and deluded fool here and on other internet forums.

--

To give the OP an answer - the improved positional measures taken over time allowed a systematic reduction in the data, that showed that the existing hypotheses about planetary movement needed much more complexity to account for, when a simpler idea made more sense and could then have the early concepts of the scientific method applied. In this instance the simpler account was the more correct one - validated often since by the ability to be able to predict the positions of other solar system objects as they were located and orbits became calculatable. When it was seen that a simple elliptic orbit with the Sun at one of the foci allowed the positions to be calculated with much greater accuracy. It's a testament to the inductive powers of those men that they were able to make that leap from the old systems to the new hypotheses - but they had the observations and the ability to predict future observations that were further validated, on their side.

It's a pity that we don't have more information on the exact methodology that let to this induction, as it would give a great insight to the frame of mind of those men at the time.

ps200306

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I took a look to see when this craziness started, and found this quote from 2011

Took a look around myself. There's some crazy stuff there alright. He doesn't believe the moon rotates on its axis. Thinks Newton destroyed astronomy. Etc. etc.

Anyway, I learned quite a bit myself from this thread -- about Kepler's methods and the apparent motions of Venus. So thanks.

Zubeneschamali

I also learned something during this thread:



which is cool.

ps200306

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I also learned something during this thread:



which is cool.

Yes that is cool. I find I can rearrange it as:



... which gives a more intuitive picture (to my slow brain anyway). The synodic period contains exactly one more orbit of planet 1 than it does of planet 2 (even though it'll rarely be an integer multiple of either period, except in the case of orbital resonances).

Popoutman

Something of relevance to the later portions of this thread..

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/why-do-we-cling-to-beliefs-when-theyre-threatened-by-facts/

Hmm.
Good thread this overall, apart from the off-topic Venus graphic constantly repeated..