The great astronomical correction

oriel36

As a visual explanation, the reason and purpose of an additional day/rotation after the fourth cycle of 365 days can now be presented to students and interest adults whereas before it could not. We know this day as February 29th 2020.


The proportion of days across a full calendar cycle from the beginning of March 1st 2016 to the end of February 29th 2020 is 1461 days in proportion to 4 years or in dynamical terms 1461 rotations to 4 orbital circuits which breaks down ,to a close proximity, to 365 1/4 days and rotations to one orbital circuit.


Our astronomical ancestors stretching back to remote antiquity knew they could not base their year on a 365 day system as their festivals would drift away from the Solstice and Equinox points. The first written account was the Canopus decree where they used the first annual appearance of Sirius as an annual marker -

".. 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


As a visual narrative in 21st century dynamical terms, the change in position of the stars from left to right of the Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth was known to the ancient astronomers as the transition of the stars from a twilight to dawn appearance where the star was out of sight for a number of weeks -

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

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181123.html

When Sirius was just far enough to the right of the Sun to be seen outside its glare at dawn, this provides contemporaries with an orbital marker for the Earth's position and motion.

As the day and rotation is anchored to noon, it becomes possible to discern how many times the planet turns within an orbit was noticing that it does not turn 365 times for each year but the parent observation is 4 orbital circuits which give a refined view of 365 1/4 rotations arising from the main proportion of 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits.


Of course all this can be explained clearly but as satellite imaging is fairly new, allowances can be made.

oriel36

There is no reason why anyone would find this material objectionable considering that the astronomical correction is tied to the motions of the planet and Earth sciences .

Beneath the hood of the calendar system is a precise astronomical engine so although the surface narrative in the arrangement of months or the number of days within the months are arbitrary, the structure itself is precise and defined. The same with the Lat/Long system where the prime meridian is arbitrary but the framework is precise as it is anchored to the noon cycle.

The closest date to Spring within the astronomical framework is February 1st coming as it does about 6 weeks from midwinter (seasonal) locked together with the December Solstice (astronomical). The day/night cycle with noon being a milestone symmetrical to sunrise/sunset follows the annual fluctuations in temperatures as the warmest part of the day in response to daily rotation is around 3 PM rather than noon just as July into August follow a similar annual fluctuation -

https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg

https://www.weather-us.com/weather/images/climate/5/3/2340435-500-temperature-f-en.gif


If planetary temperatures are so important along with research like Arctic sea ice evolution or the appearance of hurricane season among many other events, the engine for those changes are as precise as those which govern the day/night cycle in isolation.

Northern Europeans, due to their latitudes, did not arrange the annual cycles around a meteorological cycle as winters and summers change from year to year. They arranged the cycles to conform with astronomy including locking midwinter and midsummer to their astronomical milestones of the Solstices.

Of course the Americans can declare Spring doesn't come until the March Equinox or the Brits on March 1st but the engine which conditions the relationship between planetary motions and Earth sciences including the response of biology, including humans, is as defined as the day/night cycle in response to a rotating Earth.

Zubeneschamali

oriel36 wrote: »

There is no reason why anyone would find this material objectionable considering that the astronomical correction is tied to the motions of the planet and Earth sciences .

I don't find your material objectionable as long as you keep it in your own threads.

oriel36

The original arrangement of the calendar was not entirely arbitrary and well worth a look for those unfamiliar with its history -

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Plutarch.html

The reason why an extra day and rotation is added at the end of this month is precise and definite in demonstrating the close proximity of timekeeping to the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits, in this case 1461 days/rotations for 4 orbital circuits using a specific astronomical event (first annual appearance of Sirius) which breaks down to 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.

oriel36

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't find your material objectionable as long as you keep it in your own threads.

It is unpleasant to encounter people who have been subject to radicalisation through education so they are unable to accept or appreciate the wider historical and technical perspectives which form the basis between the orbital and rotational cycle in astronomy with the day and yearly cycle in timekeeping.

The normalising of an astronomical view, however painful, is to demonstrate the relationship of rotations to orbital circuits first and then graft in timekeeping so neither the calendar system nor the 24 hour system intervenes at first.

The transition of the stars from an evening appearance to a morning appearance defines the orbital position of the Earth in its orbit -

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


That is the first stage. The next step in calculating the number of sunrise/noon/sunset cycles within that period so at it's roughest structure it would appear as 365 times.

Having established this, the first refinement was noticing that in order for the Earth to return to the same orbital position around the Sun and extra day would need to be added after the fourth cycle of 365 days making 1461 days for four annual cycles.

".. 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


This is where timekeeping departs from the daily rotation and orbital cycles as although days retain their correlation to the sunrise/noon/sunset cycle, the year does not correspond to an annual cycle. The reason for this is that the parent observation of 1461 days/rotations for four orbital circuits is formatted as three years of 365 days/rotations and one year of 366 days/rotations.


Tricky I know, nevertheless, the entire picture is presented to us every fourth year as February 29th approaches. Radicalisation doesn't do astronomical subtleties and timekeeping intricacies hence it appears as objectionable material rather than a new project to undertake.

coylemj

oriel36 wrote: »

It is unpleasant to encounter people who have been subject to radicalisation through education so they are unable to accept or appreciate the wider historical and technical perspectives which form the basis between the orbital and rotational cycle in astronomy with the day and yearly cycle in timekeeping.

You're currently serving a ban from the Weather forum for ignoring the warning below from their mods, you've clearly learned nothing. We should ask that mod to do a guest spot here for a few days.....

Meteorite58 wrote: »

Moderator Warning : oriel36 your aggressive and trolling posting style, demeaning references to other members, and the repeated soap boxing of your ideas are not welcome. If you persist, you may be carded and banned.

oriel36

coylemj wrote: »

You're currently serving a ban from the Weather forum for ignoring the warning below from their mods, you've clearly learned nothing. We should ask that mod to do a guest spot here for a few days.....

I genuinely understand that appeal from a point of view of radicalisation as much as I do the so-called warning I received at the beginning of this topic from what is basically the forum bouncer. I saw the same thing last night on RTE when children were chastising parents based on a modeling venture called 'climate change' therefore it is an unpleasant experience to encounter people who find it difficult to reason independently.

The information in this thread is new as a single narrative which puts the daily and orbital motions of the Earth in context of Earth sciences on one side and timekeeping as a separate issue.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The information in this thread is new as a single narrative which puts the daily and orbital motions of the Earth in context of Earth sciences on one side and timekeeping as a separate issue.

Actually it's more than 2,000 years old. The only thing that's new is your intentional obfuscation, so as to make it sound more complicated than what most of us learned in junior school.

slade_x

coylemj wrote: »

You're currently serving a ban from the Weather forum for ignoring the warning below from their mods, you've clearly learned nothing. We should ask that mod to do a guest spot here for a few days.....

To reiterate the Forum Charter

Redshift wrote: »

if you have an issue or problem with the forum or its moderators please do not post it in the forum you should either make a post in the Admin/Support or PM the relevant moderator or an administrator.

Thank you.

oriel36

The proportion of 1461 days/rotations for 4 orbital circuits is founded on the relationship between the rotational and orbital cycles to a close proximity by calling to attention how the original astronomers reasoned but also using 21st century imaging to create a narrative I imagine students would appreciate and enjoy. The main reference uses a demonstration of the Earth's orbital motion around the Sun by using the Sun as a central reference for the change in position of the stars -

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

It also helps observers appreciate how their distance to the horizon acts like a Sun visor depending on whether it is to the left of the Sun ( evening/twilight) or to the right of the Sun (morning/dawn).

At the level of timekeeping, the framework of Ptolemy where the Sun moves through the constellations annually doesn't retain the method using the transition of stars from an evening to morning appearance whereas the Egyptian priests used a drift in the position of Sirius after the fourth cycle by one day (or what effectively is one rotation) to keep dates closely fixed to the Equinox and Solstice points.

The Ptolemaic astronomers only considered a drift as the precession of the equinoxes of roughly one degree for every 72 years yet within the original framework it represents that there are not exactly 1461 rotations for 4 annual circuits. As Copernicus was obligated to use the framework of Ptolemy to satisfy the requirement of predictive astronomy in his era, he used axial precession to account for the 1 degree drift each 72 years.


In other words, the precession of the equinoxes and the minor drift is a further refinement of the drift which the older astronomers seen in Sirius after four annual cycles hence it is merely a refinement in the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits and not axial precession as Copernicus proposed. That feature is crucially important for another purpose.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The proportion of 1461 days/rotations for 4 orbital circuits is founded on the relationship between the rotational and orbital cycles to a close proximity by calling to attention how the original astronomers reasoned but also using 21st century imaging to create a narrative I imagine students would appreciate and enjoy. The main reference uses a demonstration of the Earth's orbital motion around the Sun by using the Sun as a central reference for the change in position of the stars -

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

It also helps observers appreciate how their distance to the horizon acts like a Sun visor depending on whether it is to the left of the Sun ( evening/twilight) or to the right of the Sun (morning/dawn)...

What do you hope to gain by posting that same picture over and over? Dozens of times in just the last few weeks across multiple threads.


Hopefully you will at least remember that Mercury is currently swinging out from behind the Sun in direct motion, reaching greatest eastern elongation in four days time on February 10th. It will then swing back toward the Sun still in direct motion, until Feb 17th when it will be briefly stationary, then enter retrograde. Of course, none of this will be apparent in your limited SOHO view as Mercury will only be visible for a few days around inferior conjunction on Feb 25th. This will allow you to cluelessly continue spreading disinformation about the direct and retrograde motions of the inner planets corresponding to "actual" loops around the Sun.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

What do you hope to gain by posting that same picture over and over? Dozens of times in just the last few weeks across multiple threads.

The demonstration that the Earth orbits the Sun using the time lapse of the Lasco C3 camera becomes a point for reference for many different productive topics, at least for those with normal perceptive judgments.

If I had to answer every sour complaint which plays loose with my words then I too would be constantly indignant, however, this is for people who can appreciate and express their own judgments in a positive and creative way. You actually did contribute in a productive way by inserting the narrow corridor into astro-imaging where imaging of Venus taken over an 18 month period has a blind spot that can now be filled in and particularly the actual circuits of Venus and Mercury as the move in front and behind the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

https://imgur.com/5adXFsD

Don't move backwards but move on otherwise leave others to enjoy ways to use the 21st century framework once familiarity is established.

oriel36

The Egyptians had a system of reckoning which gives rise to our current calendar framework where the 1461 days/rotations across four annual circuits is formatted as 3 years of 365 days/rotations and 1 year of 366 days/rotations.

The Egyptian Decans was a system where they used the appearance of 36 grouping of stars with the dawn Sun along with a 5 day inter-calendar period and ultimately the addition of a day that now has become February 29th -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decan#/media/File:Senenmut.jpg

Unlike the Greek framework where the Sun moves annually through the constellations, the Egyptian framework lends itself more easily to the new 21st century framework which some people presently find objectionable but others will not, given its latent possibilities to work on multiple different topics.


Astronomy is therefore separated by four different types of frameworks serving many different purposes. The first was the Egyptian framework described above, the second was the Ptolemaic framework where orbital comparisons were made based on the Sun's direct motion through the constellations while the planets 'wandered' and the basis for solar system modeling among the first heliocentric astronomers -

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

The next framework is RA/Dec which originally allowed observers to add to calendar predictions of the original geocentric astronomers by using a 24 hour clock within dates but by sacrificing the distinctions between the direct motion of the Sun through the constellations and the wandering planets by putting the Sun in a wandering motion -

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


The new framework leapfrogs the previous two and goes back to inspect the original framework which uses the heliacal rising of the stars but subtracts any daily rotational component. The major difference is the role the Sun plays by becoming stationary and central as it is proper for 21st century concerns.

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


The forum should not be afraid of something new as the inspection of these observations doesn't really lend themselves to anything other than a discussion or a project. There are enough subtleties and intricate components to ward off notions of simplicity for its own sake yet , in their own way, many explanations become streamlined and clear once the pros and cons of the different frameworks are dealt with.

ThunderCat

Not this again.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The new framework leapfrogs the previous two and goes back to inspect the original framework which uses the heliacal rising of the stars but subtracts any daily rotational component. The major difference is the role the Sun plays by becoming stationary and central as it is proper for 21st century concerns.

As usual you are missing the difference between a framework or model, a coordinate system, and a mere observation. The SOHO LASCO C3 view, pretty as it is, is just an observation. It's a window on the sky, centred on the Sun. In a whole year, the solid angle in steradians swept out by the C3 field of view will be: . Since the field of view is thirty solar radii, the fraction of the sky that is ever visible is or approximately one eighth. It wouldn't be very useful as the basis for a general coordinate system due to its limited size and variable speed of motion.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

As usual you are missing the difference between a framework or model, a coordinate system, and a mere observation. The SOHO LASCO C3 view, pretty as it is, is just an observation.

The word 'consideration' or to be considerate was once the greatest of human attributes and marked the advancement of any society whether the people who built Newgrange, the Egyptians and even Western society up to a historical point -

https://www.etymonline.com/word/consider

The 21st century framework of the Earth moving through space and around the stationary Sun demonstrates how the stars change position from left to right of our central star as a founding principle rather than just a 'pretty observation' -

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

On the surface of the Earth, when we look out in the direction of the Sun at twilight when the distance from observer to horizon acts like a giant Sun visor, we see everything close to the left of the Sun while at dawn before the Sun comes into view we see everything to the right of the Sun.

The additional one day/rotation of February 29th in 3 weeks is based on the transition of the stars from an evening to morning appearance -

".. 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

The total of 1461 days/rotations across 4 orbital circuits is then formatted in two ways. For timekeeping purposes like the calendar, it is constructed as three years of 365 days/rotations and one year of 366 days/rotations while for research purposes between the motion of the planet and Earth sciences it reduces to 365 1/4 rotations for one circuit to a close proximity.

Inconsiderate people insist on 366 1/4 rotations within the confines of one orbital circuit and its calendar equivalent of 366 times in one year using the same dreary clockwork modeling and the contrived solar vs sidereal modeling -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYKnWYu6fiU&t=106s

Apologises to those who appreciate the original framework and its translation into 21st century dynamical terms as opposed to the nonsense in that solar vs sidereal 'explanation' above which is really not fit for human reasoning.

ps200306

Today's astronomer is perfectly well acquainted with multiple perspectives. Some of them have been known for thousands of years, some for hundreds. He (or she) understands a rotating, earth-centred celestial sphere which is, after all, how the sky presents itself to the immediate senses. He can conceptualise a moving Sun, passing through the zodiacal constellations. By simple relativity he can picture the stars drifting through a sun-centred field. He can understand a flattened projection of the sphere, with the Sun moving sinusoidally, or even with the entire firmament wobbling sinusoidally passed the Sun. From an Earth-bound perspective he can mentally construct many time lapses, none of which corresponds to the actual moment-to-moment movement: the subsolar point moving north and south with the seasons, the analemma tracing out the noonday Sun, the solstice points on the horizon, the stationary points and retrograde loops of the planets. To make sense of all of these he will employ and understand multiple coordinate references -- latitude and longitude, right ascension and declination, ecliptic and galactic latitude and longitude, and more. He may use geocentric, heliocentric or barycentric frames, rotating or not. He will understand multiple calendars and systems of time-keeping.

What he won't do is bang on endlessly about the view from a particular camera, hundreds and hundreds of times. Only some class of obsessive with a deranged fixation would do that.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

What he won't do is bang on endlessly about the view from a particular camera, hundreds and hundreds of times. Only some class of obsessive with a deranged fixation would do that.

The view from the LASCO C3 camera creates permanent solar eclipse conditions where the Sun is stationary and both timekeeping and solar system astronomy is at its purest.

The entire framework of the calendar system is not arbitrary but defined by the first annual appearance of Sirius where the 1461 days/rotations in confined within 4 complete orbital cycles to a close proximity.

The issue is therefore consideration and the new 21st century perspectives hated by celestial sphere theorists who imagine the Sun moves in a sine wave -

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

Or a figure 8 -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Analemma_pattern_in_the_sky.jpg/310px-Analemma_pattern_in_the_sky.jpg


The dignity of our ancestors where the Sun moved directly through the ecliptic is now replaced with a stationary Sun, the change in position of the stars from left (evening) to right ( morning) of our central star due to the orbital motion of the Earth.

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


Everything considerate about astronomy and the people who practice it is met with its opposite among the experimental theorists -

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/consideration

That is what defines followers of empiricism and their 'clockwork solar system' and not squirming or banning will change that.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The view from the LASCO C3 camera creates permanent solar eclipse conditions where the Sun is stationary...

... as you have said, hundreds of times.

oriel36 wrote: »

...and both timekeeping and solar system astronomy is at its purest.

Nonsense.

oriel36 wrote: »

...celestial sphere theorists who imagine the Sun moves in a sine wave

In a suitable coordinate frame, it does.

oriel36 wrote: »

The dignity of our ancestors where the Sun moved directly through the ecliptic is now replaced with a stationary Sun

Only when co-orbiting with the earth, and pointed at the Sun. This is just another coordinate frame -- one that you seem fixated on, while showing revulsion for all the other equally valid ones.

sbs2010

Just stumbled in here. Could someone explain in simple terms what the OP is on about and what
the other posters find objectionable?

All I can see is every agrees we need a leap year. What am I missing?

ps200306

The OP has been posting the same view of the Sun on multiple threads, literally hundreds of times, for several years. Always with the same prosaic mumbo jumbo about a revolutionary new perspective.

Zubeneschamali

sbs2010 wrote: »

All I can see is every agrees we need a leap year. What am I missing?

You have to read 5 million words of introductory material before Gerald gets to the good stuff:

He denies that Mercury and Venus show retrograde loops. He denies that Mercurys observed position is evidence for relativity, and if you wait long enough, he hints that the speed of the planets in their orbits is affected by electromagnetism.

Oh, and he does not believe in axial precession, and there is something weird at Fomalhaut.

He is convinced he is a modern Copernicus, and that Newton and Einstein were rubbish. And he writes and writes and writes for hours and hours on end.

oriel36

The reactions are all very inconsiderate and inaccurate, after all, astronomers are supposed to be among the most considerate people alive. It is therefore a mirror back on yourselves when encountering the perspective of a Sun centred system and how different topics emerge such as how direct/retrogrades of the faster planets differ from the slower moving planets or how the extra day/rotation of February 29th completes 1461 days/rotations in 4 orbital circuits or 365 1/4 days/rotations for 1 circuit along with many other topics.

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

Although grainy and not totally smooth, the time lapse has the same importance as the invention of the telescope so while improvements will undoubtedly surface, there is charm in the principles it introduces to a society who insist they can choose whatever framework they like with equal standing (astronomical anarchy).

I am from the Christian heritage of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo so can do these things because I simply can and for no other reason than it is enjoyable and exceptionally satisfying. In contrast to the extreme tedium of those who are flailing around, people can show themselves to be considerate rather than waste their time being aggressive or being nuisances in putting words in my mouth that are not mine. Genuine astronomers couldn't care less as to how they appear to the world yet do care whether their descriptions are adequate to build on or that others with talents for animation or imaging can pick up on the narrative for everyone's benefit. It is therefore impossible to research or enjoy these things for extended periods unless the focus is on the topic itself rather than the obstructing subcultures which prevent the new perspective from making it into wider circulation so those who imagine I have some self-centred perspective the way the late 17th century experimental theorists had are kidding themselves and wasting their time.

" Above all the graces and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit which Christ grants to his friends, is the grace of overcoming oneself, and accepting willingly, out of love for Christ, all suffering, injury, discomfort and contempt; for in all other gifts of God we cannot glory, seeing they proceed not from ourselves but from God, according to the words of the Apostle, "What have you that you have not received from God? and if you have received it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" St Francis of Assisi

That is the secret to themselves of all productive, creative and considerate people whereas those of intellectual pretense would strive to have themselves elevated to a position among humanity by their own efforts and opinions.

oriel36

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, and he does not believe in axial precession

You can do better than this .

The original proposal of Copernicus was that the North/South poles turn in small circles parallel to the orbital plane over the course of an orbit -

"The third is the motion in declination. For, the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the Grand Orb's axis, but is inclined [to it at an angle that intercepts] a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2°. Therefore, while the earth's center always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of a circle of the Grand Orb, the earth's poles rotate, both of them describing small circles about centers [lying on a line that moves] parallel to the Grand Orb's axis. The period of this motion also is a year, but not quite, being nearly equal to the Grand Orb's [revolution]. " Copernicus

http://copernicus.torun.pl/en/archives/astronomical/1/?view=transkrypcja&

In effect, his description of the North/South Poles annually looks like this -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth_precession.svg

The last sentence is important as it really refers to the annual drift known as the precession of the equinoxes based on the fact that there are not exactly 1461 days/rotations in proportion to 4 orbital circuits.

Within the new perspective , the precession of the equinoxes is just a further refinement of the observation which go into the calendar framework as the drift in Sirius by one day/rotation after the fourth cycle of 365 days/rotations also meshes with the precession of the equinoxes. Copernicus was obligated, unfairly as it is, to satisfy the requirements of the Ptolemaic framework and its predictive nature but in doing so the more satisfying explanation was lost but is now recovered with the Sun centred framework.

Zubeneschamali

It might be fairer to say he does not understand axial precession as you can see above.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

It is therefore a mirror back on yourselves when encountering the perspective of a Sun centred system and how different topics emerge such as how direct/retrogrades of the faster planets differ from the slower moving planets...

They don't differ, as explained to you before. They are exactly the same. Here is the upcoming retrograde of Mercury, starting the day after tomorrow at position 1:



The star Ancha is circled if you'd like to locate this in the sky. At the very same time, Earth will perform a retrograde from Mercury's perspective. There is no difference between the two.

oriel36 wrote: »

...or how the extra day/rotation of February 29th completes 1461 days/rotations in 4 orbital circuits or 365 1/4 days/rotations for 1 circuit along with many other topics.

We've formally incorporated this into the calendar for over 2,000 years, and have understood the orbital implications for over 400. We did that without needing your picture below:

oriel36 wrote: »

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

Although grainy and not totally smooth, the time lapse has the same importance as the invention of the telescope...

A quick search on boards.ie shows that you have posted that image fifty times in the last month alone. Does it not seem obsessive to you that you are posting it twice a day, across more than half a dozen different threads?

As important as the invention of the telescope? First of all it is a telescope. The feature that you are waxing lyrical about is its orientation. It has to perform station keeping manoeuvres to keep the coronagraph always pointed at the Sun as it orbits, just as an equatorial mount must move to keep a star in view as it rotates with the Earth. If SOHO maintained a fixed orientation to the stars (like the Earth's poles but without the diurnal rotation) it could take a time lapse of Mercury's retrograde that would look exactly like the image I posted above. Same spacecraft, same camera, same orbit, different rotation. (It would have to move its occulting disc around to stop the wandering Sun from blinding it).

oriel36 wrote: »

I am from the Christian heritage of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo so can do these things because I simply can and for no other reason than it is enjoyable and exceptionally satisfying.

For some of the rest of us, it gets tedious after the first few repeats. Especially since much of it is wrong.

oriel36 wrote: »

The original proposal of Copernicus was that the North/South poles turn in small circles parallel to the orbital plane over the course of an orbit -

"The third is the motion in declination. For, the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the Grand Orb's axis, but is inclined [to it at an angle that intercepts] a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2°. Therefore, while the earth's center always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of a circle of the Grand Orb, the earth's poles rotate, both of them describing small circles about centers [lying on a line that moves] parallel to the Grand Orb's axis. The period of this motion also is a year, but not quite, being nearly equal to the Grand Orb's [revolution]. " Copernicus

http://copernicus.torun.pl/en/archives/astronomical/1/?view=transkrypcja&

In effect, his description of the North/South Poles annually looks like this -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth_precession.svg

This shows a lamentable lack of understanding from one who is so fixated on the peculiar orbital manoeuvres of the SOHO spacecraft. In order to keep pointing at the Sun, SOHO must perform one rotation per annual orbit. Suppose a companion spacecraft, NORO, did not do this? From NORO's perspective the Sun would drift through the fixed constellations, just as it appears to from Earth. Furthermore, by not rotating with respect to the stars, NORO would appear to perform one annual rotation as viewed from SOHO. SOHO would perceive that this annual rotation, along with the orbital motion, would combine to give NORO its fixed orientation to the stars. This is exactly the description that Copernicus gives of the Earth's "motion in declination":

"The poles of the daily rotation would always be fixed in like manner at the same points of the heavens by the motion in declination combined with the Orb's motion, if their periods were exactly equal."

Unlike you, Copernicus is able to move his minds eye between different perspectives.

oriel36 wrote: »

The last sentence is important as it really refers to the annual drift known as the precession of the equinoxes based on the fact that there are not exactly 1461 days/rotations in proportion to 4 orbital circuits.

And here you show a total lack of understanding of precession. It has nothing to do with the ratio of diurnal rotations to orbits. We already omit three leap years every four centuries to make that correspondence closer. In principle we could perform finer adjustments to make it exact. Precession is a completely separate type of motion -- an off-axis wobble in the Earth's rotation. In the parlance of the "wandering RA/Dec Sun" that you so dislike, it shifts the position of the vernal equinox, the Sun's position among the zodiacal constellations when it crosses the equator from south to north. No leap day insertion could move the Sun along the ecliptic to adjust for this, even though it could stop the seasons wandering through the calendar.

oriel36 wrote: »

Within the new perspective , the precession of the equinoxes is just a further refinement of the observation which go into the calendar framework as the drift in Sirius by one day/rotation after the fourth cycle of 365 days/rotations also meshes with the precession of the equinoxes.

Nope.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

They don't differ, as explained to you before. They are exactly the same. Here is the upcoming retrograde of Mercury, starting the day after tomorrow at position 1:



The star Ancha is circled if you'd like to locate this in the sky. At the very same time, Earth will perform a retrograde from Mercury's perspective. There is no difference between the two.

It will be easily adopted as it fills in the gap of a narrative between astro-imaging of Venus over an 18 month period as it runs an actual loop ( including direct/retrograde motion) and that period where Venus overtakes our slower planet at transit.

https://imgur.com/5adXFsD

Venus approaches the Earth -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

Venus overtakes the Earth with our central star as a backdrop -

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


Venus is in retrograde motion when it passes between the slower moving Earth and the Sun while it is direct motion as it moves behind the central/stationary Sun.


Of course it is all new and exciting, the process to set up the Sun as a stationary reference for the first time in history owes its presence to an orbiting satellite and a few genuine astronomers who realise just how different direct/retrogrades are between the faster and slower planets seen from a moving Earth .

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

Astronomy was always a talent with little rote learning so it is a mirror on individuals and all those positive human traits which come with reasoning with the stars (consideration).

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/consideration

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

Venus is in retrograde motion when it passes between the slower moving Earth and the Sun while it is direct motion as it moves behind the central/stationary Sun.

You've said that hundreds of times, and you've been wrong each time. A counterexample can be seen, starting literally tomorrow. On Monday evening, Mercury will reach greatest eastern elongation from whence it will swing in front of the Sun from our perspective. However, it will continue in direct motion until Feb 17th, when it enters retrograde. Only several days later will it become visible in the SOHO LASCO C3 camera. This amazing perspective that you keep banging on about has too narrow a field of view to even show you the transitions between direct and retrograde planetary motion.

I guess that's lucky for you, as then we'd actually see the inferior planets in direct motion in front of the Sun, and you'd be exposed as a charlatan. Of course, anyone with a free copy of Stellarium can set up such an animated view for themselves, as I did to produce the image below. But I know you think Stellarium is a seventeenth century plot to spoil astronomy with mathematics ... even though its the same mathematics that got your beloved SOHO camera to where it is.



Mercury is "in front" of the Sun at all the numbered markers, but NOT in retrograde:

• 1: Feb 10th, Mercury at greatest eastern elongation, in direct motion
• 2: Feb 16th, Mercury is stationary before entering retrograde
• Red markers, period during which Mercury is visible in C3 camera. Inferior conjunction on Feb 25th.
• 3: Mar 8th, Mercury is stationary before resuming direct motion
• 4: Mar 24th, Mercury at greatest western elongation

dermiek

I've a headache lol

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

You've said that hundreds of times, and you've been wrong each time.

There is no wrong to it , following in the footsteps of Galileo, the issue is a matter of continuity where the gap between a transit when the faster moving planets pass between the stationary Sun and slower moving Earth join together with astro-imaging lovingly and patiently demonstrated of Venus with its phases and size increases or decreases are arranged as a natural loop or circuit of 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

Instead of being restricted to the traditional idea of transits, observers can appreciate the inner solar system planets travel back and forth behind and in front of the central Sun without considerations like an evening or morning appearance.


The issue of direct/retrogrades was covered in the other post insofar as there is nothing unduly difficult in seeing Venus move quicker than the change in the position of the stars from left to right of the stationary Sun (due to the orbital motion of the Earth) and this is what our astronomical ancestors saw as retrograde motion in the faster moving planets.

There is no reason that filling in the gap as the faster moving Venus passes between the slower moving Earth and central Sun would give anyone a headache as it is a mirror for observers to see whether they are confident astronomers with the ability to use time lapse footage -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg


All the hapless flailing around with your image is unfortunate when you actually did contribute a useful imaging of that small corridor where the LASCO C3 camera takes up the motions of Venus and Mercury seen from a slower moving Earth with a stationary Sun orchestrating all motions.

I have seen this before where a person gets a glimpse of what is being said yet, instead of contributing to a better explanation, goes into full reverse. It is regrettable but I shrug at this stage when confronted with people who try to face down what contemporary imaging is telling them for flawed late 17th century notions.

corny

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You have to read 5 million words of introductory material before Gerald gets to the good stuff:

He denies that Mercury and Venus show retrograde loops. He denies that Mercurys observed position is evidence for relativity, and if you wait long enough, he hints that the speed of the planets in their orbits is affected by electromagnetism.

Oh, and he does not believe in axial precession, and there is something weird at Fomalhaut.

He is convinced he is a modern Copernicus, and that Newton and Einstein were rubbish. And he writes and writes and writes for hours and hours on end.

He livens up the forum though and the jibes at his expense (sorry Oriel) are hilarious.

oriel36

To be fair, the reference websites eventually catch up and present the outlines of the extra 24 hour day and rotation added at the end of the fourth 365 day cycle -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_29

For all the banning, the information ultimately gets processed, albeit in a less careful manner, where the present calendar represents a proportion of 1461 rotations within 4 orbital circuits or a raw fact of 365 1/4 rotations for one complete orbital circuit to a close proximity. To convert that proportion into a timekeeping format of 365 days 6 hours (again, to a close proximity) is a journey through human innovation and using specific astronomical events.

The parent observation which defines the Earth's orbital position in space as a star emerges from behind the Sun's glare to the right of our central star as a morning appearance is also the one which determines the number of times the planet turns within an orbital cycle, in the case of the Egyptians, that was the heliacal rising of Sirius -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181123.html

The orbital motion of the Earth causes this first annual appearance of Sirius ( the star at the middle bottom of the image above ) -

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


People are not brutes of the field nor are they comatose, they can work out that one 24 hour day is one rotation of the Earth yet one year is not one orbital circuit of the Earth around the Sun as the proportion of days/rotations is formatted as 365 days/rotations for three years and 366 days/rotations for 1 year.

Wikipedia is a project that morphs explanations as new information becomes available yet that can be perilous as those doing the adjusting are not often as careful or disciplined as those presenting original material. I have often presented it all as a project requiring different talents hence the only insult I know of - silence.

oriel36

corny wrote: »

He livens up the forum though and the jibes at his expense (sorry Oriel) are hilarious.

Generally the jibes come from people who are shallow in their understanding of astronomy and its links to timekeeping.

Nobody ever explained the calendar framework, including the extra day/rotation next week, from the first principles based on the proportion of rotations for one orbital circuit. In this case, including the extra day/rotation, it amounts to 1461 days/rotations for 4 orbital circuits using a parent observation and to a close proximity which reduces to 365 1/4 rotations for 1 orbital circuit.

The Irish monument builders of 5,200 years ago would have known about the necessity of the extra day as their Solstice and Equinox alignments would have directed those ancient astronomers and builders to that conclusion.

The nearest written record comes from the Egyptian Decans and especially the first annual appearance of the star Sirius -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decan

That is astronomical poetry and nothing like the present shallow descriptions seen coming up to the extra day/rotation of February 29th, after all, the hapless solar vs sidereal people insist on 366 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.

A heliacal rising is actually an orbital reference point for the Earth's motion as stars appear just far enough to the right side of the Sun to be seen as a dawn appearance and this is what the Egyptians and all other societies were witnessing. It is a new demonstration for the Earth's orbital motion using a stationary Sun regardless how the dull and sullen will sulk.

It belongs to humanity in its ancient timekeeping format and its 21st century exposition using a satellite orbiting with the Earth in determining how the stars change position to the central Sun. No citation is needed as all astronomers are interested in exploring the celestial neighbourhood and how we see things from a rotating and orbiting Earth.

Zubeneschamali

oriel36 wrote: »

Nobody ever explained the calendar framework, including the extra day/rotation next week, from the first principles based on the number of rotations for an orbital circuit.

Apart from every Primary school teacher in Ireland.

oriel36

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Apart from every Primary school teacher in Ireland.

".. 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

That is the parent observation within the 36 different heliacal risings throughout the year plus the 5 epagomenal days. Copernicus and the first heliocentric astronomers worked off the Ptolemaic framework where the Sun moves through the ecliptic in direct motion hence no transitional period to a heliacal rising never mind the 17th century curse of a Sun in a sine wave RA/Dec motion.

No primary school teacher, no secondary school teacher or University academic ever suggested the proof of the orbital motion of the Earth using the change in position of the stars parallel to the orbital plane which dynamically represents a heliacal rising of a star or, in 21st century terms, the reference for the Earth's orbital position in its circuit of the stationary Sun.

To explain the leap day/rotation requires such proof of the Earth's orbital motion.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

Copernicus and the first heliocentric astronomers worked off the Ptolemaic framework where the Sun moves through the ecliptic in direct motion hence no transitional period to a heliacal rising never mind the 17th century curse of a Sun in a sine wave RA/Dec motion.

The position of the rising Sun on the horizon moves sinusoidally in azimuth through the year. We don't know which were the Decan stars used by the Egyptians, but no doubt they are arrayed north and south of the celestial equator just like those of the zodiac. The Sun has been snaking its way through the heavens since way before the 17th century.

Zubeneschamali

oriel36 wrote: »

No primary school teacher, no secondary school teacher or University academic ever suggested the proof of the orbital motion of the Earth using the change in position of the stars parallel to the orbital plane which dynamically represents a heliacal rising of a star or, in 21st century terms, the reference for the Earth's orbital position in its circuit of the stationary Sun.

Maybe you were sick that day.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

The Sun has been snaking its way through the heavens since way before the 17th century.

I come from the Christian heritage of Copernicus and Galileo where the Sun is central and stationary while the planet has a daily and orbital cycle. To be fair, they were obligated to work off a more recent framework of Ptolemy were the Sun moved directly through the Zodiac while the planets wandered -

"Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and
stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. Copernicus

The older framework is based on the seasonal appearance of the stars so allow me to cite a beautiful expression of that observation which predates yet mirrors the more technical expression of the Egyptians -

"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" Book of Job

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38&version=KJV

Mazzaroth is a hapax legomenon indicating a society that has long since passed into history yet it's importance as a heliacal rising can still be appreciated and loved using 21st century satellite time lapse. A helical rising is precise compared to the Ptolemaic apparent motion of the Sun through the constellations for a number of reasons and specifically as an orbital marker for the Earth's position to the Solstices/Equinoxes or aphelion/perihelion.

Once again I commend you and you alone for engaging insofar as RA/Dec modeling has a valid place within astronomy. It is a matter of sorting out which is useful for timekeeping predictions as dates and precise times while another framework is productive for cause and effect or, in the modified language of that ancient
author - " can you apply dynamical ordinances to the dominion of Earth sciences ? ".

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

I come from the Christian heritage of Copernicus and Galileo where the Sun is central and stationary while the planet has a daily and orbital cycle. To be fair, they were obligated to work off a more recent framework of Ptolemy were the Sun moved directly through the Zodiac while the planets wandered...

The older framework is based on the seasonal appearance of the stars so allow me to cite a beautiful expression of that observation which predates yet mirrors the more technical expression of the Egyptians...

A helical rising is precise compared to the Ptolemaic apparent motion of the Sun through the constellations for a number of reasons and specifically as an orbital marker for the Earth's position to the Solstices/Equinoxes or aphelion/perihelion.

This entire monologue is based on a false premise -- that there is any precise non-instrumental way of measuring the tropical year by reference to the stars. The tropical year -- the one that relates the Sun to the seasons -- is what the ancients were interested in tracking.

By the time of the Ptolemaic model, the zodiacal constellations were not relied upon (indeed, if they ever were) as markers of the seasons. The precession of the equinoxes had been known about for hundreds of years. The three great circles of the meridian, the ecliptic, and the equator were known, measured, and understood. Such was the sophistication by the time of Hipparchus -- predating Ptolemy by 300 years -- that the eccentricity of the moon's orbit had been measured according to evidence from the Antikythera mechanism.

Before the revolution in astronomical understanding that seems to have been achieved by the Ionian Greeks, there were many other less precise attempts to track the seasons. Heliacal risings suffered from a lack of suitable stars. The method was also only suitable for near-tropical latitudes, as the stars become progressively more circumpolar with increasing latitude. There may well have been an alternative technique involving the motion of Jupiter to divide the annual circle into 36 degree "decans".

Long, long before the Egyptians, the first calendars were undoubtedly lunar. It is much easier to track that other great luminary, the moon. Nevertheless, the importance of the tropical year necessitated the invention of lunisolar calendars. A very good case is made by Edward and Annie Maunder (of Maunder Minimum fame) for the use of seleniacal settings as a way of linking the two systems of measurement. The conjunction -- or lack thereof -- of the new moon with certain stars told the astronomers when it was necessary to intercalate additional months to sync the calendars. Again, by the time of the later Greeks they had actual, literal computers to work this out.

This idea that the Egyptian measurement of heliacal risings represented some great pinnacle of intuitive understanding of the annual orbit is flawed. Astronomy always has been, and by its very nature must be, intensely mathematical. That wasn't a 17th century plot, nor even a 7th century BC one ... through it took great leaps and bounds around then.


Hipparchus with his celestial globe, from Raphael's School of Athens.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

Heliacal risings suffered from a lack of suitable stars. The method was also only suitable for near-tropical latitudes, as the stars become progressively more circumpolar with increasing latitude.

Enclosing your perspective using circumpolar motion is far removed from a heliacal rising in orbital terms -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140620.html

The first annual appearance of the brightest star Sirius is based on the distance from observer to horizon acting like a Sun visor so as the star changes position parallel to the orbital plane due to the orbital motion of the Earth, it registered as an annual marker for the great astronomers in antiquity. It literally is a demonstration of the Earth's orbital motion and astonishing just how careful these ancient people were. The subtraction of circumpolar motion is accomplished by a satellite that is orbiting with the Earth but nor rotating with our planet.

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

As Mercury will soon show up in that time lapse where the Sun is central, it will move faster than the change in position of the background stars due to the orbital motion of the Earth so two important events coincide within the same perspective, one timekeeping and one structural in respect to the planets of the solar system.


The Ptolemaic framework is not possible without the original references for the calendar framework as all astronomical predictions as dates within the Greek framework are reliant on the 365/366 calendar format. Even after 30 years it remains astonishing how those ancient watchers of the celestial arena and one in particular concluded that for any given cycle, a star will not return to the same position after the fourth cycle of 365 days -

".. 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

Knowing what I know, the Newgrange monument builders on this island in remote antiquity would have known that they could not return after 365 days and witness the Solstice alignment indefinitely as the alignment would have been lost after 20 years without the additional day/rotation that is now February 29th.

ps200306 wrote: »

This idea that the Egyptian measurement of heliacal risings represented some great pinnacle of intuitive understanding of the annual orbit is flawed. Astronomy always has been, and by its very nature must be, intensely mathematical.

In this case the fundamental principle is arithmetic - the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits which amounts to 1461 days/rotations for 4 years/orbital circuits or reduced to 365.25 days/rotations to one orbital circuit to a close proximity. Doesn't get any more or less mathematical than that yet empiricists refuse to accept the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits due to their adherence to that enclosed 17th century celestial sphere world -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140620.html


As the stars shine then so will truth shine through the shallowness of those who show themselves to lack appreciation of our astronomical and timekeeping heritage or who cannot adjust to 21st century time lapse.

oriel36

The usefulness of RA/Dec as a means to predict the exact times of events within a date is not the same thing as appreciating an astronomical event in context of the structure of the solar system and the motions of the planets with particular attention to our orbital motion.

People who look safely in the direction of the Sun presently during daylight can stretch their perceptions momentarily to a stationary Sun with an faster inner planet beginning to overtake us as part of a graceful loop just as we participate in our own circuit of the Sun.

It would be particularly small if observers decided that all that matters is predictions for this plagued the original heliocentric astronomers who tried hard to mesh the dynamics of the Earth and other planets around the Sun with the predictive side of the Ptolemaic framework. The simple fact is that it could not be done as inverting the system where planetary motions are subservient to timekeeping diminishes both timekeeping and structural astronomy within and limiting
and counter-productive perspectives.

There is really little or no modeling involved with the present astronomical perspective as satellite time lapse allows observers to naturally mesh what is predicted with what is actually happening -

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

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

Scrolling forward with the dates will predict that Venus will travel between the slower moving Earth and the central Sun soon enough along with Mercury traveling behind the Sun.

No offence to the contributor ps200306, the other thread is relatively uncomplicated and does not invite contention about the benefits or shortcomings of RA/Dec. For that purpose it is just better to let the observation stand on its own and wait until the next spectacle comes within view of the satellite. Perhaps this thread doesn't deserve the contention either with the extra day and rotation of February 29th coming up, however, this is a matter of where timekeeping and the Earth's dynamics come into a close proximity as a proportion of 1461 days/rotations for 4 orbital circuits.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

The usefulness of RA/Dec as a means to predict the exact times of events within a date is not the same thing as appreciating an astronomical event...

No, but you can't appreciate an event without knowing when to look for it. Computation therefore precedes observation (assuming you don't sit out under the stars all night, every night, come rain or [moon]shine).

oriel36 wrote: »

... inverting the system where planetary motions are subservient to timekeeping diminishes both timekeeping and structural astronomy...

What you call "structural astronomy" is mere uncomprehending observation. Astronomy with timekeeping and computation is science.

oriel36 wrote: »

There is really little or no modeling involved with the present astronomical perspective as satellite time lapse allows observers to naturally mesh what is predicted with what is actually happening...

Little or no modelling? You go on to provide a website with complicated software for predicting when planets will appear on the time lapse. Not to mention the awesomely complex calculations needed to position that camera where it can make your time lapse in the first place.

oriel36 wrote: »

Scrolling forward with the dates will predict that Venus will travel between the slower moving Earth and the central Sun soon enough along with Mercury traveling behind the Sun.

You mean running the model forward using complex software? Face it, without the computation you wouldn't know when to look for a transit. As it is, if you'd used more elaborate software like Stellarium you would have been able to predict the arrival of Mercury on the SOHO coronagraph to within hours or minutes.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

What you call "structural astronomy" is mere uncomprehending observation. Astronomy with timekeeping and computation is science.

As both a Christian and a person from the 21st century, that statement appears facile for the simple reason that the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits as 1461 rotations for 4 circuits is derived from the original observation that the first annual appearance of Sirius skips an appearance by one day/rotation after the fourth 365 day cycle. In straightforward terms - the motions of the Earth define timekeeping as days and years to a close proximity so inverting the principles using 17th century clocks is perhaps a grave injustice to the original careful astronomers and their works we inherit.

Timekeeping begins with formatting the 1461 days/rotations (including the day/rotation of February 29th) into 3 years of 365 days/rotations and one year of 366 days rotations while 'structural astronomy' recognises the raw fact of 365 1/4 rotations for one orbital circuit.

RA/Dec modeling insists on 366 1/4 rotations for each orbital circuit as proponents of that framework do not begin with first principles as the ancient astronomers once did in using the fact that Sirius will still skip a first annual appearance.

As the leap day approaches, there are no explanations which begin with the first principle that the stars move from left to right of the Sun and parallel to the orbital plane as a means to identify where the Earth is in its orbit of the Sun. All explanations try to begin with 365 /14 days for one circuit whereas the parent observation for the calendar framework can only begin with a four year cycle.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

As both a Christian and a person from the 21st century, that statement appears facile for the simple reason that the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits as 1461 rotations for 4 circuits is derived from the original observation that the first annual appearance of Sirius skips an appearance by one day/rotation after the fourth 365 day cycle. In straightforward terms - the motions of the Earth define timekeeping as days and years to a close proximity so inverting the principles using 17th century clocks is perhaps a grave injustice to the original careful astronomers and their works we inherit.

This is patently wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. Firstly, you already pointed out yourself that the builders of Newgrange knew that the tropical year could not be divided into an integral number of days. That knowledge predates the first written records of astronomy by 2,000 years. So to say that the heliacal rising of Sirius is the "original" observation is unfounded. We don't know what the original observations are as they stretch back far into prehistory -- at least to the Neolithic and the dawn of agriculture if not way beyond.

Secondly, it is facile to refer to "orbital circuits". There was no established connection between the heavenly motions and any sort of unified cosmology before 600 BC, and it was several hundred years later that cosmology took proper shape. Even then there was a conflict between geocentric and heliocentric models, though the available evidence favoured the former. The pre-Ionian astronomers noted regularities in the skies but did not connect them (that we know of) to any model involving orbits of the Earth around the Sun or vice versa.

Thirdly, just because the tropical year was useful for tracking the seasons does not mean that it is the most fundamental or important observation. It is no less fundamental to observe that the Earth makes 366¼ (approx) sidereal rotations in a tropical year. Given our modern understanding, which was not available to any previous civilisation, it depends on your purpose.

Our truly modern understanding of the solar system has only been developed painstakingly over hundreds of years since Kepler. It would have baffled earlier astronomers, including Copernicus -- not only because of observational advances but because of the development of the scientific mindset. Aesthetic intuitions such as circular orbits reflecting the perfection of the heavens just didn't cut any ice any more.

Therefore to refer to the "motions of the Earth" as defining timekeeping to Egyptian astronomers is anachronistic. The diurnal rotation of the heavens was not connected to any property of the Earth until the early classical period. The Decans and heliacal rising of Sirius appear in writings of the 12th dynasty in Egypt, and in coffin inscriptions somewhat earlier than that (c. 2000 BC). That is 1500 years before any cosmology involving orbits and a rotating spherical Earth.

This fantastical connection and continuity between heliacal risings and the orbiting SOHO spacecraft is purely in your head.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

This fantastical connection and continuity between heliacal risings and the orbiting SOHO spacecraft is purely in your head.

Most of what you write is talking down the careful observations of astronomers in antiquity, however, we still use their system where an extra day and rotation with all its effects (daylight/darkness, temperature fluctuations, ect) completes 4 orbital circuits and the 1461 rotations enclosed within those 4 cycles. This breaks down to 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit to a close proximity so, framed as a proportion with cause and effect included, the nearest timekeeping gets to the actual motions of the Earth is 1461 days to 4 years mirroring 1461 rotations to 4 orbital cycles.


The SOHO Lasco 3 camera orbiting with the Earth shows how the stars change position to the stationary Sun parallel to the orbital plane -

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


It means that observers are obligated to refer the change in position of the stars to the central Sun rather than circumpolar risings from horizon to horizon. It is a sign of development into the actual world of 21st century astronomy to adjust to what the orbital motion of the Earth and the central Sun dictates.

The extra day/rotation next Saturday makes up the orbital distance lost over the last 4 years using daily rotation and the 24 hour day as a gauge. From its beginning on March 1st 2016, in a timekeeping format, the year of 365 days/rotations represents that through March 1st 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 the gap between the timekeeping year based on 365 days/rotations and the actual orbital circuit of 365 1/4 rotations grew by one extra rotation across 4 years. February 29th resets the relationship between the timekeeping year and the actual position of the Earth to the Solstices and Equinoxes back to a close proximity. The 24 hours of February 29th therefore represents the 1/4 day orbital distance lost with each year of 365 days and, with some effort, should be enjoyed so long as the observer doesn't try to force timekeeping to dictate the framework as current explanations of the leap year tend to do.


Readers were asked to take it for granted that our astronomical ancestors didn't know about the motions of the Earth but were concerned about keeping their festivals fixed to the Equinox and Solstice points as they had been doing for many thousands of years. Translating their timekeeping framework into planetary dynamics from first principles can be delicate and intricate but such is astronomy and timekeeping.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

we still use their system where an extra day and rotation with all its effects (daylight/darkness, temperature fluctuations, ect) completes 4 orbital circuits and the 1461 rotations enclosed within those 4 cycles.

Their system measured the tropical year. They knew nothing about orbital circuits. They also knew nothing about precession of the equinoxes. If they wanted to predict the Nile flooding from the heliacal rising of Sirius today they'd be sorely disappointed.

oriel36 wrote: »

The SOHO Lasco 3 camera ... means that observers are obligated to refer the change in position of the stars to the central Sun rather than circumpolar risings from horizon to horizon. It is a sign of development into the actual world of 21st century astronomy to adjust to what the orbital motion of the Earth and the central Sun dictates.

It shows nothing that hasn't been known to every amateur astronomer for 400 years.

oriel36 wrote: »

Readers were asked to take it for granted that our astronomical ancestors didn't know about the motions of the Earth but were concerned about keeping their festivals fixed to the Equinox and Solstice points as they had been doing for many thousands of years. Translating their timekeeping framework into planetary dynamics from first principles can be delicate and intricate but such is astronomy and timekeeping.

Our astronomical ancestors had much more practical concerns, mainly the propitious times for activities relating to food production. There are no first principles by which planetary dynamics can be definitively inferred from naked eye observations. Some of the planets dim as they get further away in their orbits, but Venus does not because of its increasing phase which cannot be seen with the naked eye. The stars show no apparent annual parallax which is impossible unless they are at distances inconceivable to the ancient mind. The Ptolemaic system of epicycles is clunky, but the Copernican system doesn't fix it until you know about elliptical orbits. Their discovery required Brahe's technology to make the detailed observations and Kepler's maths to interpret them.

Additionally, you need scientific theories of inertia and gravity to explain why the Earth appears to be a stable centre of rotation for the cosmos. And you need to ditch hypotheses based on aesthetics, such as fire tending naturally from the imperfect sublunary sphere toward the Empyrean heaven (Coelum Empireum). For all these reasons, the thread of connection you want to draw between bronze age astronomy and satellite observation is naive and simplistic. To then repeat it hundreds of times is a sign of an unhealthy fixation. As a Christian, maybe you'd like to join me in avoiding these pages for Lent?

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

Our astronomical ancestors had much more practical concerns, mainly the propitious times for activities relating to food production. There are no first principles by which planetary dynamics can be definitively inferred from naked eye observations.

Without descending into contention, the number of rotations enclosed within 4 orbital circuits is based on the ability to count and the fact that the star Sirius will skip a first annual appearance by one day/rotation after the fourth 365 annual cycle as it emerges from behind the Sun's glare (should be easy to envisage along with the SOHO time lapse)-

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181123.html

".. 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

That naked eye observation can be easily translated into planetary dynamics provided that the first principles are adhered to. Less proficient people are inclined to introduce complications where none are required but then again they can be corrected once they see the bigger picture.

" ...although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
happened to them if they had followed proper principles." Copernicus,
De Revolutionibus


In this case, the foundation for timekeeping relies on a stationary Sun, the orbital motion of the Earth and the change in position of the background stars parallel to the orbital plane in response to that orbital motion -

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

Despite our differences, you seem to be quite a pleasant man so don't give into comments that distract from the topic at hand. People are needed to work on the framework where the stars no longer move in circumpolar motion but are applied to the central Sun in their left to right motion which the great astronomers in antiquity witnessed as a transition from twilight to dawn appearance. If you choose to believe astronomers have known this principle for 400 years then it is unlikely that all the other major modifications will take place with care and consideration even if the issue of priority is not an issue with me.

oriel36

Today closes out the 1461 days/rotations corresponding to four annual circuits of the Sun that began March 1st 2016, at least to a close proximity. It represents the great human timekeeping framework where the seamless transition of one rotation to the next in tandem with the weekday is formatted around the orbital motion of the Earth.

The point of departure is the parent observation that the Earth returns to roughly the same destination in space after 1461 days/rotations which are formatted as 3 years of 365 rotations and 1 year of 366 rotations. It also represents the raw fact that the planet turns 365 1/4 times within one orbital circuit.

The day/night cycle anchored to noon maintains cause and effect between one rotation and the distance traveled by the Earth during that period. In a non-leap year, the orbital distance of 6 hours is omitted naturally as rotations are used as a gauge but after 4 circuits of the Sun, this will amount to roughly 24 hours so the calendar plays catch-up to the Earth's orbital position in space by adding an additional day and rotation.

Of course it all comes down to how the first annual appearance of the star Sirius provided an astronomical positional marker for the Earth in its journey around the Sun. Without the recognition that the stars change position from left to right of the central Sun, the deficient explanations for this important day in astronomy and timekeeping will continue by starting off with the raw fact and trying to build a narrative that way, something which cannot be done. There are others who adhere to the primacy of the fictional 'sidereal day' and attribute 1465 rotations to this specific day but they can be ignored by virtue that they try to bypass cause and effect between the day/night cycle and one rotation.

Zubeneschamali

oriel36 wrote: »

The point of departure is the parent observation that the Earth returns to roughly the same destination in space after 1461 days/rotations

The whole solar system including the Earth will have moved about 70 billion kilometers in the direction of Hydra during that time, so nope.

Eh, are ye 100% certain you're not debating with an AI (with emphasis on the A rather than the I).

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, are ye 100% certain you're not debating with an AI (with emphasis on the A rather than the I).

You can't debate with Gerald, but sometimes when you correct one of his errors he stops repeating it.


For example, he no longer refers to quadratures of Venus.