Mercury overtakes Jupiter

oriel36

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Although it looks like Jupiter and Mercury are traveling in opposite directions, the perspective is created by the fact that the Earth is traveling between the faster moving Mercury and the slower moving Jupiter.

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Although it looks like Jupiter and Mercury are traveling in opposite directions, the perspective is created by the fact that the Earth is traveling between the faster moving Mercury and the slower moving Jupiter.

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

The Earth isn't travelling between them as it is on the opposite side of the Sun to both planets. It also has little to do with Mercury moving faster and Jupiter moving slower. If the planets involved were Mars and Jupiter they'd both appear to be moving the same direction with respect to the Sun, even though Mars would still be moving faster than Jupiter in space. In reality, the effect is an artifact of parallax from the moving Earth. If Earth were stationary with respect to the Sun then both Mercury and Jupiter would appear to move toward the Sun.

Look at the SOHO time lapse. Note that the stars are drifting left to right across all three bodies, the Sun, Mercury and Jupiter. They are moving fastest across Mercury and slowest across Jupiter. Since the Sun ranks in the middle, Mercury and Jupiter must appear to be moving in opposite directions with respect to it. But if it were Mars instead of Mercury, the Sun would be moving fastest with respect to the stars, and both planets would be moving away from it.

To get an idea of how the parallax works we need a better solar system viewer, one which shows orbits to proper scale and shape. I recommend this one for better functionality. In particular it lets you export transparent pictures so you can overlay the planetary positions for different dates as I have done here:





I've blanked out all the planets except Earth (on the left), Mercury, and Jupiter (on the right). The planets are orbiting the Sun anticlockwise. The planet positions are shown for 29-Dec and 03-Jan (the same interval as the SOHO time lapse) in pink and black respectively. I have drawn lines extended through the Earth and Sun for the two dates, coloured the same way.

The line from Earth through the Sun is swinging around anticlockwise as time progresses (from pink to black). Both Mercury and Jupiter are moving in their orbits the same direction as that line. But Mercury's angular position as seen from Earth is changing faster than the line. Hence the black Mercury is closer to the black line than the pink Mercury is to the pink line. So Mercury appears to move toward the Sun, while Jupiter is falling ever further behind.

That's really all that needs to be said about it.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

The Earth isn't travelling between them as it is on the opposite side of the Sun to both planets.

The Earth always travels between the faster moving Mercury and the slower moving Jupiter so scroll through the dates to affirm this -

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

ps200306 wrote: »

Look at the SOHO time lapse. Note that the stars are drifting left to right across all three bodies, the Sun, Mercury and Jupiter.

The stars change position from left to right due to the orbital motion of the Earth, however, it also sets the Sun up as a central reference for not only our motion and position in space but also the positions and motions of the other observed planets. The Earth may be the opposite side of the Sun yet it always moves between the faster moving and smaller circumference of Mercury and the slower moving and larger circumference of Jupiter.

ps200306 wrote: »

They are moving fastest across Mercury and slowest across Jupiter.

The change in the position of the stars are an illusion created by the orbital motion of the Earth around the central/stationary Sun so it is the speeds of the individual planets and their relative speeds between them and to us which presents observers with more than a few combinations as they come into view and move different ways within the visual narrative.

The older pre-Ptolemy framework depended on the first dawn appearance of stars (heliacal rising) which translates into an easy to discern conclusion made possible using a tracking satellite free of the Earth's daily rotation. In this case the observed transition of the stars from left (evening appearance) to right (dawn appearance) was really a function of the Earth's orbital motion. It isn't that difficult by any standards let alone from people who profess and interest in astronomy and impossible to understand the creation of timekeeping without it -

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

I see Mercury overtake Jupiter from the Earth which always orbits between those planets using a line-of-sight observation from a satellite creating permanent solar eclipse conditions and makes enjoyment of that conclusion possible for all but the dour and dull.

The framework of Ptolemy had the Sun move through the background stars, however, the more productive modern view is setting the Sun up as a stationary reference as a means to account for the Earth's own orbital motion by way of the change in positions of the stars. The first heliocentric astronomers didn't use the central Sun as a reference but used a 'fixed stars' background by which they gauged the relative speeds between a faster moving Earth and the slower outer planets hence inferred a central Sun indirectly by allowing for the resolution of direct/retrogrades using relative speeds -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html


This is all new and perhaps more objections will help move the issue out into the wider world. Instead of one resolution for the observed motions of the planets, the split perspective allows for many combinations as the planets,some faster and slower than the Earth, come into view in a framework where the Sun is central to all motions. The eyes take a while to become accustomed to what is being played out in the time lapse but there is a point when people know what is where and how they move within the framework of a central Sun. I trust observers to move it on from here by making some effort to make use of observations in real time. That is actually happening close to the Sun presently if people look safely out in the direction of the central Sun just for perspective.

oriel36

When Mercury passes in front of the Sun, its brightness is greatly diminished due to the fact that it shows more of the dark phase in respect to our slower moving planet further out while presently it is dazzling bright.

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

In early September 2003, the time lapse shows Venus in direct motion as it travels behind the Sun while Mercury was traveling in the opposite direction in retrograde motion between the slower moving Earth and the stationary/central Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQSmFbh64QQ&t=303s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g5JkGzALNc

It is simply a matter of matching the actual time lapse of planetary motions seen from an orbiting satellite with the animated graphics to make sense of the symphony. As Mercury travels from left to right in front of the Sun, it becomes even darker in phase until it transitions to the right and begins to become bright as its bright phase begins to show.

It is not for everyone but for those who can, they can anticipate how the planets will be seen to move as they come and go when seen from a moving Earth and are entirely free to join in.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The Earth always travels between the faster moving Mercury and the slower moving Jupiter so scroll through the dates to affirm this -

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

... The Earth may be the opposite side of the Sun yet it always moves between the faster moving and smaller circumference of Mercury and the slower moving and larger circumference of Jupiter.

The default view of your linked site shows circular orbits and nothing like the correct scale. It appears to be geared toward astrology. The radius of Jupiter's orbit is shown at around 1.6 AU instead of 5.2 AU. Nevertheless it does show that Earth's orbital radius is intermediate between those of Mercury and Jupiter, which is the only sense in which Earth is moving "between the circumference of Mercury and Jupiter". But we hardly even need diagrams to tell us that. It's true at all times. We've known it for nigh on 500 years. The specific current configuration is as I showed:




And by the way, to appreciate what's going on in detail you need more than a time lapse from SOHO. For instance, the Sun is moving around 1.1 degree per day against the background stars at present, compared to an average of less than one, as we are at perihelion. Mercury meanwhile is moving considerably less than its average angular speed, being near aphelion in an eccentric orbit. For these things you need a mathematical model, not just pretty pictures.

oriel36 wrote: »

The change in the position of the stars are an illusion created by the orbital motion of the Earth around the central/stationary Sun so it is the speeds of the individual planets and their relative speeds between them and to us which presents observers with more than a few combinations as they come into view and move different ways within the visual narrative.

And we've known this for nigh on 500 years.

oriel36 wrote: »

The first heliocentric astronomers didn't use the central Sun as a reference but used a 'fixed stars' background...

...This is all new and perhaps more objections will help move the issue out into the wider world.


...The eyes take a while to become accustomed to what is being played out in the time lapse but there is a point when people know what is where and how they move within the framework of a central Sun.

If you mean Copernicus couldn't see the planets when they were within a few degrees of the Sun, well that's a consequence of having a big fiery ball shining through an atmosphere. If you are saying that he would have been surprised to learn of the motions of the planets during conjunctions with the Sun, that's patently false (even though he thought the orbits were circular). Kepler, though, could have produced the above diagram to scale after the publication of the Rudolphine tables in 1627. So you could argue that this perspective is a little less than 400 years old. Still hardly new.

oriel36 wrote: »

It is not for everyone but for those who can, they can anticipate how the planets will be seen to move as they come and go when seen from a moving Earth and are entirely free to join in.

Yep, Kepler anticipated it in 1627, and Gassendi used it to spot a transit of Mercury four years later.

oriel36

This is for those who can appreciate the new framework and not to insult the original heliocentric astronomers who worked off the limited stationary 'fixed stars' framework of Ptolemy where the Sun moved directly through the constellations while the planets 'wandered'. They correctly identified the solution for the direct/retrograde motions of the slower moving planets as seen from a faster moving Earth so that a stationary Sun was inferred through relative speeds between the faster Earth and slower moving planets.

". . . the ancient hypotheses clearly fail to account for certain important matters. For example, they do not comprehend the causes of the numbers, extents and durations of the retrogradations and of their agreeing so well with the position and mean motion of the sun. Copernicus alone gives an explanation to those things that provoke astonishment among other astronomers, thus destroying the source of astonishment, which lies in the ignorance of the causes." 1596, Mysterium Cosmographicum


https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html


The back and forth motions ( direct/retrograde motions) of Venus and Mercury require an entirely different framework where most of the Earth's orbital motion is accounted for by the change in position of the stars from left to right of the stationary Sun thereby setting up a central reference for all planetary motions -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/


The first heliocentric astronomers did so much within the limitations of their observations, however, there is no illusory loops of the faster moving Venus and Mercury in their smaller orbital circumferences as they run actual circuits of the Sun with discernible phases dictating that circuit .

Genuine astronomers should have no difficulty splitting the perspectives between the illusory direct/retrograde loops of the slower moving planets and the actual loops seen of the faster moving Mercury and Venus -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181108.html

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


The faster moving planets are darkest at the centre of retrograde motion when those planet overtakes the slower Earth with the Sun as a central/stationary reference -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7U5VbasKr4&t=19s


The slower moving planets are brightest at the centre of retrogrades as the Earth overtakes those planets using a stationary 'fixed stars' background as a gauge -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100613.html


Copernicus didn't fear Church censure, he feared that people who couldn't appreciate the subtle arguments would diminish the impact of his insights and the same applies today. The dull and dour are always with us but so also are those who can discern something new and exciting within reach of our society so all this is done for them.

ps200306

Listen, this is complete gibberish. You are quite simply, laughably wrong. You clearly don't know what a retrograde of an inferior planet is. You have been copying and pasting the same nonsense onto threads here for years. You do it on other forums too, for instance here.

Here are two images you constantly reference. You describe the first as "the illusory direct/retrograde loops of the slower moving planets" and the second as "the actual loops seen of the faster moving Mercury and Venus":



The second picture shows a complete orbit of an inferior planet. The inferior planets have retrograde loops just like the superior ones, but yours is not a picture of one. You don't appear to understand that. In similar vein you say that compared to the retrogrades of the superior planets: "the back and forth motions ( direct/retrograde motions) of Venus and Mercury require an entirely different framework". But the back and forth motions of the inferior planets between maximum elongations, behind and in front of the Sun, do not correspond to direct and retrograde motion.

Here is the next retrograde of Mercury coming up next month:



I have marked four events, clearly distinguishing the retrograde from the greatest elongations:

• Feb 10 - greatest eastern elongation
• Feb 17 - begin retrograde motion
• Mar 10 - end retrograde motion
• Mar 24 - greatest western elongation

The retrograde motion lasts 21 days, less than a quarter of the 88 day orbit. During it, Mercury moves east to west against the stars. At all other times it moves west to east. This is clearly nothing to do with its motion with respect to the Sun as Mercury reaches greatest western elongation two weeks after the end of its westward march against the stars.

Retrograde motion of an inferior planet means exactly the same as it means for a superior one -- it reverses direction with respect to the fixed stars. It has literally nothing (nada, zilch) to do with "the sun as a fixed reference". It does happen to occur close to inferior conjunction so the Sun is in the picture, making it extremely difficult to observe. And far from "requiring an entirely different framework", a retrograde of an inferior planet and a retrograde of a superior planet are one and the same event, seen from different perspectives. For the absolutely most basic illustration, look at this animation:

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/llb0zzo6q2

When the superior planet is in retrograde from the perspective of the inferior planet, the converse is true at exactly the same time. However, the inferior planet is close to inferior conjunction, so difficult to see.

For a more lengthy video, see here:

If you don't get it after this spoon-feeding, I fear there is no hope for you.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

Here are two images you constantly reference. You describe the first as "the illusory direct/retrograde loops of the slower moving planets" and the second as "the actual loops seen of the faster moving Mercury and Venus":



The second picture shows a complete orbit of an inferior planet. The inferior planets have retrograde loops just like the superior ones, but yours is not a picture of one. You don't appear to understand that. In similar vein you say that compared to the retrogrades of the superior planets: "the back and forth motions ( direct/retrograde motions) of Venus and Mercury require an entirely different framework". But the back and forth motions of the inferior planets between maximum elongations, behind and in front of the Sun, do not correspond to direct and retrograde motion.

I don't mind your objections as I find it exceptionally useful in distinguishing the two different types of frameworks needed to account for the motions of the slower moving and faster moving planets seen from a moving Earth.

The major innovation is accounting for the Earth's orbital motion using the change in position of the stars from left to right and parallel to the orbital plane in order to set the Sun up as a stationary/central reference -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

The faster moving Venus and Mercury run from right to left (direct motion in older terms) behind the Sun and from left to right (in retrograde motion) when the pass between the slower moving Earth and the central Sun. Their loops or circuits are therefore actual with some but very little influence in perspective due to the Earth's own orbital motion.

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


The sequence of images took 18 months where everything to the left of the Sun is an evening appearance and everything to the right is a dawn appearance so the Earth's orbital motion only delayed when Venus reached its widest point as seen from Earth as both and evening or morning appearance. There is none of the relative speeds against a stationary 'fixed stars' background which were so important for resolving the direct/retrograde illusory loops of the slower moving planets seen from Earth -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The language of inferior/superior planets has passed its shelf life with space age travel as we can see the faster moving Earth from the slower moving Mars where the Earth too will be seen to move behind and in front of the Sun as a single actual loop just as we now see Venus and Mercury. Space age perspectives require space age people.


Observations presently are dominated by stellar circumpolar motion where the change in position of the stars from horizon to horizon is solely determined by rotation, however, the productive framework is the change in position of the stars from left to right thereby creating an anchor for perspectives using the true central/ stationary Sun. This modifies the older framework of Ptolemy where the Sun runs a course through a 'fixed stars' stationary background -

http://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/sun_ecliptic.gif


Without the recognition that the stars change position using the central Sun as a central reference as a response to the Earth's orbital motion, none of this would make sense and none of the perspectives can be enjoyed.

oriel36

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

The first glimpse of Saturn as it moves in direct motion through the field of stars and behind the Sun, always moving from left to right using the central Sun as a reference.

The excellent visual aid helps observers put the position of all the planets in relation to the central Sun including the motion and position of the moving Earth. It is not just a 'pretty picture' as some would have it but a real incentive for astronomers to pick up on this new approach to astronomy.

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

Mercury will overtake Saturn quicker than Jupiter as it is possible to see Jupiter's direct motion through the background stars, however, as the Earth moves faster than Jupiter, that planet will be seen to move across the time lapse from left to right rapidly and only incrementally from right to left. The same with Saturn which will be seen to move from left to right quicker as it has a barely discernible motion from right to left. It takes a bit of getting used to but this is what astronomers do and should be up to the challenge.

The celestial sphere enthusiasts using RA/Dec software perhaps don't like anything beyond identification and magnification but for those who are genuinely space age people and admire modern engineering which makes these views possible, they will practice this new form of challenging astronomy. I don't find it in anyway difficult with familiarity but others may take to it easily while others are best left to their identification exercise .

The key is setting the Sun up as a central reference using the change in position of the background stars parallel to the ecliptic in response solely to the orbital motion of the Earth thereby obviating the need for a RA/Dec (celestial sphere) framework.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The faster moving Venus and Mercury run from right to left (direct motion in older terms) behind the Sun and from left to right (in retrograde motion) when the pass between the slower moving Earth and the central Sun. Their loops or circuits are therefore actual with some but very little influence in perspective due to the Earth's own orbital motion.

And once again this is quite simply WRONG. If it were the case, the inferior planets would spend about half their orbits in direct motion and half in retrograde. They do not. The loop of an inferior planet around the Sun is a completely different thing to its retrograde loop with respect to the stars. A planet is NOT in retrograde throughout its passage from left to right in front of the Sun. No matter how many times you repeat this, it is fundamentally in error.



And so I give up. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. But nevertheless I will give you the wherewithal to confirm the facts visually for yourself. It's up to you whether you want to be like Galileo's dogmatic detractors and refuse to look through the telescope.

Launch Stellarium and follow these precise instructions:

• Switch off the atmosphere and ground, and switch on an ecliptic grid.
• Search for and click on the Sun to keep it permanently centred.
• Zoom to about 50 degrees FOV.
• Advance the time in increments of one sidereal day, by clicking Alt '+'.
• You will see Mercury perform its orbital loops around the Sun.

For the next part you will need to advance the time to a particular date, around 10-Feb-2020 and also locate the star Theta Aquarii (although any star in the vicinity of Mercury will do as all we want is for the stars to be stationary).

• Set the date to 10-Feb-2020
• Click on θ-Aqr to centre it
• Now advance the time in increments of a sidereal day as before.
• You will see Mercury perform its retrograde loop, approximately centred on θ-Aqr.
• While this is happening, you will see the Sun zip across the view reflecting the the fact that an inferior planet's retrograde spans the time of inferior conjunction.

And that will have to be my last word on it. I've shown you that the retrogrades of inferior and superior planets do not need a different explanatory framework, indeed I've given you a link to a simulation that shows they are the same thing. And now you have the wherewithal in Stellarium to view the next retrograde of Mercury with respect to the stars, and also its orbital loop around the Sun, showing that they are different things.

By the way, you will not be able to view the onset of Mercury's retrograde in your SOHO camera views. The LASCO C3 coronagraph has a field of view of only 30 solar radii, i.e. about 7 degrees either side of the Sun. Mercury will be twice that angular distance from the Sun in ecliptic longitude when it moves from direct to retrograde motion on Feb 17th. (Although in your mistaken terminology it will have been moving left-to-right in front of the Sun since Feb 10th).

It will come into view on SOHO around Feb 22nd at which point it will have dimmed to magnitude 3.6. This is not a problem as the coronagraph has a limiting magnitude of 7 to 8 (depending on Sun conditions). Indeed, this pass of Mercury takes it over 3 degrees of ecliptic latitude from the Sun so it remains partly illuminated and never gets above magnitude 5.3 at inferior conjunction, so it may remain visible for the whole duration. Mercury will still be in retrograde when it disappears off the right side of the coronagraph, so you also won't get to see it pass into direct motion while still travelling left-to-right w.r.t. the Sun.

Here's what would you would see if the coronagraph FOV was wide enough to encompass the entire orbit of Mercury. I hope you can understand it, but I won't hold my breath. After passing right-to-left behind the Sun, Mercury would stall and begin returning left-to-right (which you mistakenly call retrograde) but not as fast as the rightward drift of the stars. The planet's rightward speed would increase until after seven days it caught up to the stars and would be difficult to distinguish from the star field. It would then start to outpace the stars (i.e. actually in retrograde) until, having crossed the Sun it would slow down to star speed once more, thus ending its retrograde motion. Still travelling left-to-right it would now fall behind the stars, until eventually it also halted with respect to the Sun and tracked back right-to-left.

oriel36

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

There is nothing in that wonderful time lapse that cannot be reduced to a traffic roundabout analogy (albeit and American or Continental European one) where planets can be correlated with faster and slower moving cars in lanes closer and further from the centre.

The road becomes the orbital plane of the Earth and the stars become background objects that change position from left to right of the central roundabout as seen from the moving car (Earth) as it travels anti-clockwise around the traffic circle.

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

By scrolling through the dates and looking at where the planets are to the stationary centre , those who are genuine astronomers can show students what they are looking at when they observe the actual time lapse of Mercury overtaking Jupiter and soon overtaking Saturn as we look towards the central Sun (roundabout) and all that goes on in the background and foreground. Students in this space age will love it and may indeed give them that appreciation to give society the foundations to begin spaceflight once more as a destination for short term travel.


The issues of RA/Dec software (stellarium) can wait as indeed the rather large history surrounding observations and the reason older astronomical societies chose the perspective they did. The difference is that 21st century imaging from a satellite makes things so clear hence observers here can first make the proper and normal judgments before moving on to dealing with historical deficiencies if they so choose.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

And once again this is quite simply WRONG. If it were the case, the inferior planets would spend about half their orbits in direct motion and half in retrograde. They do not. The loop of an inferior planet around the Sun is a completely different thing to its retrograde loop with respect to the stars. A planet is NOT in retrograde throughout its passage from left to right in front of the Sun. No matter how many times you repeat this, it is fundamentally in error.



And so I give up.

Actual observations from early September 2003 show Venus in direct motion as it travels behind the Sun and Mercury rocketing between the moving Earth and stationary central Sun in retrograde motion. The change in position of the background stars to the central Sun determines the Earth's orbital motion and speed but as Mercury travels faster than the Earth it moves quicker in respect to the stationary Sun, Mercury's motion to the background stars is also quicker hence observed retrograde motion -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQSmFbh64QQ&t=309s


The animated graphic helps observers put the whole September spectacle in perspective so it becomes a matter of normal judgments of motion which people are so good at when driving cars and extended to the celestial arena as long term and long range observations -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g5JkGzALNc


All this is an open door so it becomes a matter of who will work on this new project made possible by a satellite tracking with the orbital motion of the Earth. It has already been accepted to a large degree but because observers find it slightly difficult to change perspectives to a stationary Sun and the change in position of the stars arising from the orbital motion of the Earth, they are inclined to stumble.

Over the years, people sometimes try to insist that this is all known and even show a website outlining what I present here but unfortunately these websites insist in retaining the motion of the Sun through the constellations -

"The sun's direction in the sky, relative to the stars, keeps shifting to the left as the Earth and SOHO orbit around it."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000508083145.htm


It shows why, since 2000, that the approach never gained acceptance, however, this can be fixed presently.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The issues of RA/Dec software (stellarium) can wait...

LOL. Sure ... if you don't mind staring through a 15 degree aperture at a grainy view of some unidentified moving stars and the odd planet, always centred on the Sun. Stellarium's for people with a bit more curiosity about the sky, and what can be seen from anywhere, on any date, centred on any object, with any field of view, and your choice of RA/Dec, Alt/Az, Ecliptic Lat/Long, Galactic Lat/Long, and other coordinate systems. :pac:

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

LOL. Sure ... if you don't mind staring through a 15 degree aperture at a grainy view of some unidentified moving stars and the odd planet, always centred on the Sun.

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/


This is a project in its infancy where the Earth's orbital motion is accounted for by the change in position of the stars from left to right of the central/stationary Sun and parallel to the orbital plane. It subtracts any RA/Dec or Lat/Long component attributed to the Earth's daily rotational characteristics and allows observers to see like for like planetary orbital motions including our own orbital motion and position in space.

I admire the original heliocentric astronomers who used a stationary 'fixed stars' framework where the Sun went directly through the constellations while the planets 'wandered' back and forth and up and down against the orbital plane so they gauged the illusory loops of the slower moving planets on this basis -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181108.html

When the observation is reduced to relative speeds between the faster moving Earth and the slower moving outer planets like a faster moving car in an inner lane overtaking a slower moving car in outer lanes and watching them temporarily fall behind in view, the whole thing makes sense -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html


The new perspective accounts for the Earth's orbital motion by the change in position of the stars hence the central Sun becomes the stationary reference for the observed motions of the other planets and how they relate to each other. It may be grainy and the view may be restricted but these are early days like computer building garages or the emergence of televisions with their grainy quality. With the help of the right people and their creative and productive talents the whole project will become clear as will the planets and stars. I personally like the grainy feature as it began something for me and so it should for others here.

If you have problems with the traffic roundabout or race track analogies then people have the obligation to improve the descriptions by using their natural talents but fundamentally we have two different perspectives to enjoy rather than the single direct/retrograde resolution proposed by Copernicus and the first heliocentric astronomers.

endacl

Funny thread. It’s like sitting in a quiet pub in the afternoon, reading a paper. The only other two people in the place are arguing over a topic you know a fair bit about. You can overhear that on of them is absolutely correct, and the other is demonstrating a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You could join in, but you couldn’t be bothered because the one who’s right already knows it, and the one who’s wrong clearly ain’t for changing.

Skill Magill

What happened in June 2011 that brought these planets together?

oriel36

Skill Magill wrote: »

What happened in June 2011 that brought these planets together?

Check it out yourself as you see the faster moving Mercury overtake Venus with the central Sun as a reference around June 1st 2011 as both travel behind the Sun as seen from a slower moving Earth -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV-rCDHCh9U

There is no C3 camera footage for that date in June as the planets are out of range of the camera but later, Mercury can be seen continuing its path in direct motion around June 6th as it enters the time lapse and moving faster than the stars change position from left to right (due to the orbital motion of the Earth).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNXE6i3YZn8


Celestial sphere (RA/Dec) observers are inclined to talk about planets close to each other rather the more challenging solar system context which includes the Earth's orbital motion, fine if that is all observers can manage but not as satisfying.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

This is a project in its infancy where the Earth's orbital motion is accounted for by the change in position of the stars from left to right of the central/stationary Sun...

More of a teenager than an infant, I think. Stellarium's been able to do that since 2002. If you're not hung up on the animations, Kepler armed with his Rudolphine tables could have drawn it for you in 1627.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

More of a teenager than an infant, I think. Stellarium's been able to do that since 2002. If you're not hung up on the animations, Kepler armed with his Rudolphine tables could have drawn it for you in 1627.

Although I greatly admire the original heliocentric astronomers, I also feel dismay on their behalf as less careful people in the years after Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler butchered their methods and conclusions without the slightest feeling of shame.

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

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils,leading the individual planets into their respective orbits,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the center, with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler Astronomia Nova 1609

The stationary 'fixed stars' background was the best these great astronomers could do as their observations were restricted to night time using a stationary background by which to gauge the motions of the planets . Nowadays the satellite can create permanent solar eclipse conditions where humans can peer at the central solar system and the background to allow observers to make sense of the central Sun using the change in position of the stars from left to right of the Sun thereby accounting for the Earth's orbital motion. From there it becomes a matter of making sense of the relationship of the planets to each other, why some brighten and darken or appear larger and smaller as seen from the moving Earth, how the galaxy appears from the orbital plane (it is just leaving the camera view presently) and many more facets to enjoy.

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

How difficult it was for astronomers in those times 400+ years ago yet they drew some of the finest conclusions without the advantages of today. In contrast, while any genuine observer can put the positions of the planets in context to the central Sun and to our orbital motion and position, very few have emerged to enjoy this new project.

Until, people recognise the proof/demonstration of the Earth's orbital motion is found in the change in position of the stars from left to right of the Sun, much of astronomy in structural context will not make sense.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

Until, people recognise the proof/demonstration of the Earth's orbital motion is found in the change in position of the stars from left to right of the Sun, much of astronomy in structural context will not make sense.

People have realised that for 500 years. It's not a proof on its own. You need a telescope to see phases of Venus. That didn't happen until 400 years ago. And you still need to explain why the stars seem to have no annual parallax -- something your SOHO pictures won't even show, let alone explain. We didn't figure that out until 200 years ago.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

People have realised that for 500 years. It's not a proof on its own. You need a telescope to see phases of Venus. That didn't happen until 400 years ago.

Such an enjoyable pursuit that ever expands new perspectives as Venus is seen running the only actual loop or circuit of the Sun it has. Even the great discoverer took a step back and marveled at how Copernicus insisted Venus retained roughly the same luminosity despite the size changes when it is behind the Sun as opposed to when it passes between our slower moving planet and the central/stationary Sun -

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

"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. Oh Nicholas Copernicus, what a pleasure it would have been for you to see this part of your system confirmed by so clear an experiment [Telescope]!

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 than at other times as at another, and still look always equal, when it should have appeared forty times larger." Galileo

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg


The same issue is present with Mercury where it dazzles as it moves behind the Sun yet when it passes between the slower Earth and central Sun it is barely discernible at the centre of its retrograde motion.

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/


The original astronomers worked off a stationary fixed stars background so the change in position of the stars from left to right of the central Sun and parallel to the orbital plane was unknown to them but the stationary framework did allow them to track the motion of the slower moving planets and resolve the illusory loops as a consequence of those planets falling behind in view as the Earth periodically overtakes them -

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

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181108.html

Kepler arranges the constellations in order around the rim of the diagram by which it marked the retrograde loops of Mars.


Everything is done for those who can appreciate what satellites can do what the first heliocentric astronomers couldn't hence the additional split view of direct/retrogrades and their resolution , depending if the planet is moving faster or slower than the Earth, creates a symphony of motions. If others who can't enjoy the different spectacle want to make a racket during this visual symphony then be my guest as I give the first astronomers credit with what they had withing visual limitations.

I suppose I could create a second thread for those who are screaming that this has been known for 500 years in order to keep their dull and dour comments away from what is new and exciting and why they see things a certain way.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The original astronomers worked off a stationary fixed stars background so the change in position of the stars from left to right of the central Sun and parallel to the orbital plane was unknown to them... I suppose I could create a second thread for those who are screaming that this has been known for 500 years in order to keep their dull and dour comments away from what is new and exciting and why they see things a certain way.

If astronomers weren't aware of the motion of the stars relative to the Sun, they'd never have come up with the zodiac. The first version of that was at least 2,500 years ago.

oriel36

People should develop a deep fondness for the original heliocentric astronomers and the excitement they shared among themselves is seeing the matter at once -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is acutely demonstrated by Copernicus" Galileo

The relative faster speed of the Earth overtaking the slower planets causing them to temporarily fall behind in view was a remarkable interpretation by Copernicus and now easily appreciated with time lapse, including the stationary 'fixed stars' background by which the motions are gauged.


The back and forth motions of the faster moving Venus and Mercury behind and in between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth or what our astronomical ancestors saw as direct/retrograde motions requires a different framework as the Earth's orbital motion supplies the central Sun as a reference by the change in position of the stars from left to right -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/


The relative motions between the Earth and Venus/Mercury are therefore minimal unlike the resolution for the slower moving planets and there illusory direct/retrograde loops.

Any objections can be sent to the other thread where I will be pleased to deal with them but the observations here should be left alone.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The back and forth motions of the faster moving Venus and Mercury behind and in between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth or what our astronomical ancestors saw as direct/retrograde motions...

That isn't what any astronomer saw as retrograde motion. Could we at least acknowledge that? Retrograde motion was a change in direction relative to the fixed stars. What you're talking about is a change in direction relative to the Sun.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

That isn't what any astronomer saw as retrograde motion. Could we at least acknowledge that? Retrograde motion was a change in direction relative to the fixed stars. What you're talking about is a change in direction relative to the Sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQSmFbh64QQ&t=303s

Early September 2003, Venus travels behind the Sun always from right to left as it moves faster than the change in position of the stars from left to right because it travels around the Sun faster than the Earth. The slower moving planets always enter the time lapse moving from left to right so even though they are seen moving in direct motion, they always exit to the right of the camera tracking with the Earth's orbital motion.

Mercury enters the time lapse in early September 2003 traveling between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth but also moving faster than the change in position of the stars from left to right. The reason is that Mercury moves faster than the Earth so the Earth's orbital input made by the change in position of the stars relative to the Sun is slower hence Mercury is seen to run in retrograde motion.

If people choose to distinguish the two perspectives of direct/retrograde motion for the slower and faster moving planets then it amounts to a recognition that a contemporary engineering achievement of an orbiting satellite makes the difference rather than finding fault with the original heliocentric astronomers .

The illusory loops of the slower moving planets do not have the Sun as the centre -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181108.html

The actual loops of the faster moving planets always has the Sun at the centre along with phases -

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


I understand the allegiance people have to the late 17th century Royal Society RA/Dec framework and their clockwork solar system in the same way Northern Unionists have allegiance to British culture therefore it is easier to bypass their celestial sphere framework and address people who can develop an appreciation of the original framework of Ptolemy that the first heliocentric astronomers were stuck with.

As far as I am concerned the RA/Dec observers are fine if astronomy amounts to magnification and identifying celestial objects close to each other but the new approach made possible by satellite imaging is more challenging and more satisfying -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/


If there is any insult then it is silence as so much is going on presently so objections are fine but much better to develop this as a project as faster and slower planets come into view periodically as seen from a moving Earth in a specific orbital 'lane' and the central Sun orchestrating this solar system symphony.

Esel

Not following the complicated 'discussion' too well, but the popcorn makes it enjoyable in a strange way...

oriel36

There is nothing more complicated about the astronomical spectacle than there is in traveling around a traffic roundabout in knowing what is stationary and what is moving quicker or slower when in a specific lane. The roundabout analogy converts into a solar system framework because 21st century imaging permits it.

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

I have to commend the contributor ps200306 even if he doesn't wish it because his objections are those of a person who knows what he is doing from his point of view. I only wish that he expands his views to take into account what was hidden before as the satellite sets up permanent solar eclipse conditions allowing a common view of orbital 'lanes' and a central/stationary Sun. It is presently just the beginning of a project which requires people of different talents and rather than popcorn spectators, it requires innovators on the pitch. I count ps200306 as the single other person on the pitch and thank him regardless of our differences.

From 30 years experience, I know how such praise backfires in terms of a reaction but such is human nature.


"When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others." Pascal

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The illusory loops of the slower moving planets do not have the Sun as the centre ... The actual loops of the faster moving planets always has the Sun at the centre along with phases.

The faster moving planets also have illusory loops that do not have the Sun as their centre, which astronomers refer to as retrogrades. Do you accept that basic fact?

If not, would you accept it from a professor of astronomy? Or from National Geographic?

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

The faster moving planets also have illusory loops that do not have the Sun as their centre, which astronomers refer to as retrogrades. Do you accept that basic fact?

The planetary phases prevent the faster moving Mercury and Venus anything other than actual loops with the Sun at the centre of their motions.

Resort to the roundabout analogy if necessary so a slower moving car in an outer lane sees one side of the faster moving car in an inner lane as it moves between the central roundabout and the slower car and the other side of the car as it moves behind the roundabout. The Earth being slower moving car while Venus/Mercury are the faster moving vehicles closer to the centre of the roundabout/Sun.

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

It is why presently you can see the bright side of Mercury as it passes behind the Sun while in a number of months you will see the dark half as a function of its orientation and phases to the Sun -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/


It is impossible to render the motions of Mercury or Venus without the Sun at the centre and stationary to their motions so I wouldn't even bother trying. I have seen all sorts of silly attempts to explain the direct/retrogrades of Venus and Mercury but they fail for what should now be obvious reasons.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

The faster moving planets also have illusory loops that do not have the Sun as their centre, which astronomers refer to as retrogrades. Do you accept that basic fact?

I won't even ask you to show the illusory loops of Venus and Mercury as seen from a slower moving Earth as they don't exist but I can show you the illusory loops of the slower moving planets seen from a faster moving Earth and what makes them that way -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181108.html

I have seen recent attempts to use the racetrack analogy because I have shown
many people how it works for a number of years yet they all fail to distinguish what accounts for the Earth's orbital motion, in this case it is not based just on relative speeds between planets which applies to the slower moving planets and Earth using a stationary background 'fixed stars' reference but an entirely different framework involving setting the Sun up as a central reference by the change in position of the stars due to the orbital motion of the Earth.

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Again, I am not going to demand that you show me the illusory loops of Venus and Mercury because they just don't exist and more importantly, these split perspectives of the faster and moving planets in different lanes from that of the Earth are seen to move in different ways to each other.

Humans naturally understand what is moving quicker and slower on a traffic roundabout and why the background changes from one side to the other as the car continues to travel around the traffic circle in a determined lane. This is just a scaling up with special attention to the role of the central Sun and background stars made possible by satellite imaging.

I can tell you watching a slower car fall behind in view as my faster car overtakes them doesn't mean they are traveling in reverse and this accounts for the motions of the slower moving planets of Jupiter and Saturn in this time lapse as they fall temporarily behind in view -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

I can also tell you that a faster moving car traveling behind the traffic circle and eventually overtaking my car as it runs back and forth in a circuit accounts for the motions of Venus and Mercury so there is no illusion involved within that framework.

You don't need professors or any other external source, just use the imaging and your own normal judgments of motions drawn from analogies, using graphical tools or anything else at hand to make sense of what is happening close to the central Sun presently -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

I am prepared to let this settle for a while until Mercury and Venus come into view over the next number of months traveling in front and behind the Sun. It is not shoving things down people's throats but offering them the full perspective of astronomy by artificial solar eclipse conditions by means of a satellite or by night observations where we face away from the central Sun.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The planetary phases prevent the faster moving Mercury and Venus anything other than actual loops with the Sun at the centre of their motions... It is impossible to render the motions of Mercury or Venus without the Sun at the centre and stationary to their motions so I wouldn't even bother trying. I have seen all sorts of silly attempts to explain the direct/retrogrades of Venus and Mercury but they fail for what should now be obvious reasons.

Quite simply wrong. This is what Mercury is going to do relative to the stars, beginning just over a month from now:



The circled star within the loop is Ancha (θ-Aqr). The crosses mark Mercury's position at approximately three day intervals, with the four numbered positions being: 10-Feb-2020, 16-Feb, 8-Mar, 27-Mar. At no time during this retrograde loop does Mercury reverse direction with respect to the Sun. The red crosses mark roughly the period during which Mercury will be visible in the SOHO/LASCO coronagraph, so the transitions between direct and retrograde won't be part of your "astronomical symphony".

Are you seriously claiming this is not going to happen? If you are not claiming that, in what way is it different from the "illusory loops" for the superior planets?

oriel36 wrote: »

I won't even ask you to show the illusory loops of Venus and Mercury as seen from a slower moving Earth as they don't exist

If they don't exist why did Ptolemy's model contain epicycles for Venus and Mercury? In any case, I've just done it. Now what?

oriel36 wrote: »

Again, I am not going to demand that you show me the illusory loops of Venus and Mercury because they just don't exist...

Oh no, believe me, the pleasure is all mine. No need to demand.

oriel36 wrote: »

I am prepared to let this settle for a while...

I'll bet you are!

oriel36 wrote: »

... until Mercury and Venus come into view over the next number of months traveling in front and behind the Sun.

Except, as I've clearly shown, your grainy little 15 degree aperture isn't wide enough to see the full retrograde loop of Mercury. Nevertheless, the entire thing will take place during Mercury's traversal in front of the Sun, and will involve no change of direction with respect to the Sun. Retrograde loops of the inferior planets always span inferior conjunction.

oriel36

This is all for people who can appreciate the split perspectives which divide the faster moving planets from the slower moving planets in their particular orbital 'lanes' as seen from the orbital motion of the Earth in between these faster and slower moving planets.

The illusory loops vs the actual loops of the faster and slower moving planets stand on their own for people who make normal judgments of motions including the use of racetrack or traffic roundabout analogies to help students understand.


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

Considering that it has been 500 years since direct/retrograde perspectives have been touched and already most people can discern the actual loop of Venus and Mercury using phase/luminosity variations orchestrating their position and motion to a slower moving Earth in an outer lane, people should take their time appreciating what is happening presently close to the central/stationary Sun and appreciated using a satellite tracking with the Earth -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/


The illusory loops of the slower moving planets don't show phases or a full set because their bright side always faces the Earth so are brightest when the Earth and the slower planets at the moment the Earth overtakes that planet -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160915.html


The faster moving Venus and Mercury are darkness at the centre of retrogrades as they pass between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth further out -

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


This is not for everyone, it is for those who can make sense of 21st century imaging to expand their appreciation of their solar system neighbourhood. I don't mind those who desperately are looking for an angle to maintain late 17th century Royal Society RA/Dec observing but such celestial sphere perspectives are only useful for predicting the times of astronomical events.

There are no illusory direct/retrograde loops of Venus and Mercury as phases representing orbital motion of those planets and the central Sun prohibit any such monstrosity regardless of what observers imagine otherwise. If these people want to diminish themselves instead of participating in a new an exciting project then so be it, I am not going to chase them nor anyone else.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The illusory loops vs the actual loops of the faster and slower moving planets stand on their own...

I just showed you that Mercury is about to make one of those illusory loops against the stars, quite separate from its actual loop around the Sun. You can believe it or disbelieve it, but just ignoring it makes you look obsessed. How about a one sentence answer for once -- do you accept that Mercury is going to perform an illusory retrograde loop against the stars next month or do you not?

oriel36 wrote: »

The illusory loops vs the actual loops of the The faster moving Venus and Mercury are [in] darkness at the centre of retrogrades as they pass between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth further out

Wrong again. As you presumably know, not every inferior conjunction is a transit which means an inferior planet can remain partly illuminated throughout its retrograde. At it's next inferior conjunction Mercury will pass almost four degrees above the ecliptic, leaving it 1% illuminated and at magnitude 5.3. Of course it will be too close to the Sun to have any chance of seeing it from Earth, but it means it won't disappear from SOHO's view.

oriel36 wrote: »

There are no illusory direct/retrograde loops of Venus and Mercury as phases representing orbital motion of those planets and the central Sun prohibit any such monstrosity regardless of what observers imagine otherwise.

You mean like this loop:


Sorry to burst your bubble but you better get used to it -- it's happening next month at a planet near you.

oriel36 wrote: »

I don't mind those who desperately are looking for an angle to maintain late 17th century Royal Society RA/Dec observing but such celestial sphere perspectives are only useful for predicting the times of astronomical events.

Sorry I had to use medieval software to prove you wrong. :pac:

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

I just showed you that Mercury is about to make one of those illusory loops against the stars, quite separate from its actual loop around the Sun. You can believe it or disbelieve it, but just ignoring it makes you look obsessed. How about a one sentence answer for once -- do you accept that Mercury is going to perform an illusory retrograde loop against the stars next month or do you not?

You don't seem to appreciate that there is no competition and I am not asking how you are going to resolve the actual loop or circuit of Mercury and Venus without displacing the Sun at the centre of their faster motions in smaller circumferences as seen from a slower moving Earth in a large circumference.

You end up challenging Galileo in this case who recognised the transition from morning to evening appearance and the role of the phases in affirming their motion around the Sun -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg

"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." Galileo

That is an evening appearance of Venus where it is in direct motion as it emerges from behind the Sun until its swings back in and starts to move in retrograde motion as it moves between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth.

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Mercury will soon transition to an evening appearance and to the left and behind the Sun as seen from a slower moving Earth so here we have a forum that is either silent or contending with the telescopic insight of Galileo.

These great astronomers didn't have a satellite tracking with the Earth's orbital motion that can peer towards the centre of the solar system so no fault can be placed at their feet for not recognising the alterations necessary to explain the Earth's orbital inputs and the central Sun to account for the direct/retrograde motions of Venus and Mercury.

I shrug, if Galileo's demonstration of phases can't survive as a visual affirmation of heliocentric motion then I don't feel slighted or insulted. Galileo did say -

“You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.” Galileo

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

That is an evening appearance of Venus where it is in direct motion as it emerges from behind the Sun until its swings back in and starts to move in retrograde motion as it moves between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth.

So you continue to maintain that an inferior planet is in retrograde motion once it "swings back in", i.e. toward and in front of the Sun from greatest eastern elongation.

Even though it is demonstrably still moving west against the stars in direct motion at that point and for some considerable time afterward, and I've given you multiple simulations as well as the wherewithal to prove it for yourself.

Ok. Your ignorance is truly invincible. I will quit flogging a dead horse.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

Ok. Your ignorance is truly invincible. I will quit flogging a dead horse.

Considering that Galileo used the phases of Venus to demonstrate the circuit of Venus in relation to the Sun and could distinguish between the beginning and end of morning appearances in terms of luminosity and size variations, his view of a central Sun and the actual loop of Venus remains a credit and he rightfully praised Copernicus for any objection as to why the luminosity of Venus remains roughly the same while size increases -

"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. Oh 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 than at other times as at another, and still look always equal, when it should have appeared forty times larger." Galileo


I don't have to fret,at least I have full appreciation of the perspective as contemporary imaging shows the size variations of Venus when it is behind the Sun and further from us as opposed when it turns in front of the Sun and overtakes us while maintaining more or less the same luminosity -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg

As that is an evening appearance as Venus is to the right of the Sun, it is easy enough to identify which stage the phase is in accordance with its position and that of the Earth presently -

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

It is also wonderful as we see it out in the open as it is far enough away from the glare of the central Sun to be seen.

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

The grainy images as you call them present a mirror to observers as they tell you if you are an astronomer or not in the truest sense of the title.It is therefore a person thing that is put out there for those who enjoy what they are seeing.


People who try to make astronomy small only make themselves small whether in silence or unjust objections.

ps200306

Mercury in retrograde around Ancha (θ-Aqr) from 17-Feb to 10-Mar-2020. Did you know the Chinese called Ancha "the second star of weeping"?

oriel36

What the telescope represented for Galileo and looking outward and away from the central Sun, the imaging from a satellite tracking with the Earth's orbital motion and looking inwards towards the central Sun should mean for observers today. Galileo's astronomy was from twilight to dawn whereas today, a total perspective between day and night is completed.

It means that just as Galileo could see Jupiter's satellites orbit their parent star, we can now see the faster moving planets with smaller circumferences than the slower moving Earth further out, run their back and forth motions behind and in front of the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqZEgoJasPQ&t=63s


https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/


Galileo extended the original heliocentric astronomy in a new way just as the satellite imaging is the 21st century equivalent of extending astronomy in a new way.

The same objections exist today as back then which can be surprising given all the tools available on the internet to help observers create a complete picture where once half (between dawn and twilight) was missing. Galileo did appeal to academics whereas I rely solely on anyone with a genuine love of astronomy as a human cultural discipline I have come to understand it really is. Galileo was wasting his time for the same reasons some today avoid putting the satellite imaging in context -

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth " Galileo


The point here is for observers is don't wait for academics to change but join a project to explain what is obvious is a clear and considerate way for students. Once again, there is no way of knowing who can or cannot appreciate what is in front of them and in all likelihood those people have no idea they are good at astronomy as it was originally practiced.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

...join a project to explain what is obvious is a clear and considerate way for students.

If you tell students that Mercury is in retrograde whenever it is travelling left to right across the Sun, you are setting them up to fail -- hardly considerate.


Mercury in retrograde around Ancha (θ-Aqr) from 17-Feb to 10-Mar-2020, but not throughout 10-Feb to 27-Mar between greatest elongations:

oriel36

It is much easier to leave the perspectives for a while as a forum that can't affirm the older perspective of Galileo where phases dictate the circuits of the faster moving Venus and Mercury in their actual loops of the Sun shown by an astrophotographer from July 2010 to January 2012 -

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

Until Venus enters the C3 camera moving in retrograde motion between the stationary and central Sun and the slower moving Earth, observers here can ask themselves if they are astronomers or just magnification and identification hobbyists but in truth, all this is for people who can appreciate how satellite imaging completes a perspective where half has been missing.

What Galileo saw as the motions of Jupiter's satellites around their parent planet can now be applied to the motions of the faster planets around our parent star as seen from a slower moving Earth further out (using a tracking satellite -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqZEgoJasPQ&t=63s

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

It is not only a matter of personal achievement and talent, it is also personal pride in our race.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

Until Venus enters the C3 camera moving in retrograde motion between the stationary and central Sun and the slower moving Earth, observers here can ask themselves if they are astronomers or just magnification and identification hobbyists but in truth, all this is for people who can appreciate how satellite imaging completes a perspective where half has been missing.

You may want to play magnification hobbyist yourself for a moment. Compared to your favourite image of Venus's orbit, here is the field of view of the SOHO/LASCO C3 coronagraph. Do you really think this arrow slit provides the most complete perspective on planetary motion?

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

You may want to play magnification hobbyist yourself for a moment. Compared to your favourite image of Venus's orbit, here is the field of view of the SOHO/LASCO C3 coronagraph. Do you really think this arrow slit provides the most complete perspective on planetary motion?

You should be proud of your very Ulster Unionist like stance when it comes to protecting English RA/Dec modeling traditions but it comes at a price of all the other astronomical traditions that preceded the celestial sphere modeling and today where a satellite completes an astronomical picture from dawn to twilight in creating permanent solar eclipse conditions -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Your view this time around is interesting at least but when shown the actual speeds of planets within that observational corridor, observers can make sense of the motions of Mercury presently in respect to it motion to the central Sun, the slower moving Earth and the even slower moving Jupiter and Saturn.

I do know if you speak for the rest in this forum and I don't much care, the idea is that I can do these things because I simply can and students will love it. So, you have Venus go into direct/retrograde motion around a distant star and now you retreat to Venus in direct/retrograde motion around our central Sun over and extended period and that is just chasing an undisciplined person.

I suggest you keep that image when Venus comes into view within a number of months or I can borrow it for explaining how Venus moves between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth but also quicker than the change in position of the stars from left to right of the Sun.

brav

oriel36 / gkell11 / GeraldKelleher

When you used to confine yourself to ramblings in one thread it was easier to ignore you but you are posting all over place lately in the same style of copying and pasting snippets that read more like snippets from a religious text rather than anything based on modern science and learning.
There is nothing wrong with this in itself, we can all believe in what we would like, but calling someone an Ulster Unionist for believing in science is a bit of a stretch.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

I suggest you keep that image when Venus comes into view within a number of months or I can borrow it for explaining how Venus moves between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth but also quicker than the change in position of the stars from left to right of the Sun.

Unfortunately for your students, Venus will not be moving quicker than the stars from left to right of the Sun. Oh, it will while you are staring through your arrow slit, but you and your students will be completely ignorant of the change that occurs from direct to retrograde outside those bounds. Unfortunately for your students, you don't even believe in it let alone have the knowledge to explain it. And judging by your rejection of multiple promptings here, you're determined to remain ignorant of it.

oriel36

brav wrote: »

oriel36 / gkell11 / GeraldKelleher

When you used to confine yourself to ramblings in one thread it was easier to ignore you but you are posting all over place lately in the same style of copying and pasting snippets that read more like snippets from a religious text rather than anything based on modern science and learning.
There is nothing wrong with this in itself, we can all believe in what we would like, but calling someone an Ulster Unionist for believing in science is a bit of a stretch.

It wasn't an insult, Ulster Unionist are insular to English traditions and RA/Dec modeling emerged from the equatorial coordinate system of Flamsteed where Newton took hold of it and sent its usefulness for astronomical predictions and sent it in the direction of experimental predictions.

It worked for centuries until presently when RA/Dec software emerged and practitioners start to model Earth sciences like the seasons using a wandering RA/Dec Sun and a truly awful Earth with a zero degree axial inclination , hideous beyond words -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612gSZsplpE&t=15s


It was always for those who can make sense of events as a satellite looks towards the central solar system where the faster moving planets move in smaller circuits so whether you think them ramblings, it is only that you lack the perceptive qualities all astronomers have -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Galileo complained that academics refused to look through the telescope so no big surprise that the same people today try their best to diminish what a satellite can do.

It is an unpleasant experience encountering the new RA/Dec software modeling bunch for the same reason people are exasperated with Ulster Unionist positions as their views are blinkered, narrow, unproductive and unchanging but people can judge for themselves by how they feel and react.

" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo


The imaging speaks for itself so the project is to make it more accessible to a wider audience. The celestial sphere enthusiasts can attack and complain all they like but nothing can stop the emergence of the other half of astronomy hidden by the light of the Sun.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

Unfortunately for your students, Venus will not be moving quicker than the stars from left to right of the Sun. Oh, it will while you are staring through your arrow slit, but you and your students will be completely ignorant of the change that occurs from direct to retrograde outside those bounds. Unfortunately for your students, you don't even believe in it let alone have the knowledge to explain it. And judging by your rejection of multiple promptings here, you're determined to remain ignorant of it.

Look, the thread is not meant to create such venom and if you decide to really put me to task then find out what you think are the weak points. It is not a battle to the end but a new way to appreciate the solar system neighbourhood and appeals to space age people with space age ideas.


Towards the end of October and the beginning of November 2002 Venus passes between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth where Venus moves faster than the change in the position of stars for reasons repeated here often (retrograde motion) while Mercury is simultaneously travelling in the opposite direction behind the Sun and in direct motion against the background stars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Done0Udbxbk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV4Hj3PsBnI

If people can't enjoy the spectacle for what it is with all the moving components then there is nothing I could or would do about that and further objections are unhelpful as all that matters is enjoyment made possible by an orbiting satellite. If you don't think the visual presentation is not beautiful or wonderful then you are entitled to that.

ps200306

brav wrote: »

... calling someone an Ulster Unionist for believing in science is a bit of a stretch.

Have to admit I rolled around laughing at that one.

oriel36 wrote: »

You should be proud of your very Ulster Unionist like stance when it comes to protecting English RA/Dec modeling traditions but it comes at a price of all the other astronomical traditions that preceded the celestial sphere modeling ...

LOL. I admit to having difficulty going back before 8th century BC Babylon. That's where we had the beginnings of equatorial coordinates, although it didn't come to proper expression until classical Greek antiquity.

The Historical Development of Celestial Coordinate Systems by Edgar W. Woolard

Few technical terms of astronomy are as familiar and as commonly used as "Right Ascension" and "Declination". These quantities are now the fundamental co-ordinates by means of which the positions of the heavenly bodies are usually specified, and in terms of which exact descriptions of celestial phenomena are expressed.

It is not immediately obvious, however, why these particular technical terms should have been adopted as the names of the quantities which they denote, nor is an adequate explanation readily found in modern textbooks or dictionaries; and it should therefore be of interest to trace their origin and derivation. It happens that the history of these terms is of special interest, because they embody the evolution of some of the most fundamental astronomical concepts, an in them survives the impress of some of the earliest ancient viewpoints and modes of thought.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

Look, the thread is not meant to create such venom and if you decide to really put me to task then find out what you think are the weak points. It is not a battle to the end but a new way to appreciate the solar system neighbourhood and appeals to space age people with space age ideas.

Ok, fair point which I will treat seriously. The SOHO views are indeed very amazing, beautiful, and educational.

The entire dispute here boils down to a very simple point. You insist on referring to retrograde motion of an inferior planet as the entire period during which it passes left-to-right in front of the Sun. You imply that the planet "moves faster than the change in position of the stars" and that this is the case between greatest eastern and western elongation, e.g. for the "front half" of that orbit of Venus you are fond of posting.

That's wrong. When Venus (or Mercury) swings back in toward the Sun, it is still moving in direct motion with respect to the stars. In the Sun-centred view it is moving slower than the stars. The period of retrograde is a subset of the period between greatest elongations. The reason why can be easily seen in an animation I provided and various other simulations also mentioned.

This could all be treated as an innocent mistake if you weren't so dogmatic in just posting the same stuff over and over again in response to corrections. That makes it hard not to treat as a joke, though no (serious :pac:) disrespect is intended.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

LOL. I admit to having difficulty going back before 8th century BC Babylon. That's where we had the beginnings of equatorial coordinates, although it didn't come to proper expression until classical Greek antiquity.

RA/Dec modeling began when John Flamsteed decided to bypass the central Sun for rotation along with its cause of the day/night cycle and appeal to stellar circumpolar motion and a celestial sphere instead -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical[constant] ... " Flamsteed to Moore

That is the foundations of the clockwork solar system and RA/Dec modeling where even the links between one complete rotation and the Earth science of the day/night cycle was lost -

" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24 hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard

The hideous pivoting circle of illumination and an Earth with a zero degree inclination is just another extension the early 20th century version applied by Ra/Dec modelers to astronomy, Earth sciences and the Earth itself.

Clocks and RA/Dec where the Sun wanders against the background stars has only existed since the late 17th century English hijacked astronomy and planetary motions to suit their mechanical solar system -

http://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/solar_year.gif

The people objecting lack gentlemen behavior so even requesting to leave things be for a while goes unheeded. There is a large volume of new and old information in this thread for a new project and not to waste time on attacking or defending the isolated bunch of Royal Society academics. I will repost my previous message as the last as I began this thread with the intention for those who can find magnificence in satellite imaging .

oriel36

Towards the end of October and the beginning of November 2002 Venus passes between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth where Venus moves faster than the change in the position of stars for reasons repeated here often (retrograde motion) while Mercury is simultaneously travelling in the opposite direction behind the Sun and in direct motion against the background stars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Done0Udbxbk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV4Hj3PsBnI

If people can't enjoy the spectacle for what it is with all the moving components then there is nothing I could or would do about that and further objections are unhelpful as all that matters is enjoyment made possible by an orbiting satellite. If you don't think the visual presentation is not beautiful or wonderful then you are entitled to that view but it is a visual symphony that requires no further additional comment other than what was presented previously.

Of course the spectacle will suffer from grotesque graffiti as is the nature of some.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

Ok, fair point which I will treat seriously. The SOHO views are indeed very amazing, beautiful, and educational.

This is for observers who are perhaps coming to see how the C3 camera completes the full perspective combining views as we look away from the central Sun between twilight and dawn with the new perspective where we can witness events close to the Sun normally hidden between dawn and twilight.

The person screaming about direct/retrogrades of Venus around a distant star early this morning has changed his view so perhaps he isn't like a die hard Unionist but more like a brexiteer politician.

If people have patience for that kind of 'brexiteer' behaviour then be my guest as it is particularly English in origin, at least from a certain section of that society and has a fervent following among the English electorate.

For everyone else they just get on filling in the narrow corridor where observations were once out of bounds while letting the astronomical equivalent of brexiteers spin their wheels. Exasperation is not a nice experience but that happens when a group fails to look at the larger perspectives offered by new approaches in a different world.

The post of the ps200306 contributor was written during my previous replies so this, I feel , needs addressing for my future contributions.