Orbital comparisons

oriel36

MT Cranium wrote ; "The earth is passing Jupiter today and will pass Saturn on the 20th, as their conjunction begins to tighten up (quite easy to find them in the southern skies around 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. these coming nights"

The Earth is passing Jupiter and Saturn at our mutual closest points, something which happened 19 years ago -

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

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

Scrolling the dates forward and it is easy to interpret why Jupiter and Saturn temporarily fall behind in view as the faster Earth overtakes these slower moving planets further out from the Sun like slower cars on a traffic roundabout in outer lanes fall behind in view as a faster car in an inner lane overtakes them.

Both Jupiter and Saturn are brightest/largest at these orbital intersections for what should be obvious reasons while the faster moving Venus and Mercury are darkest at these orbital intersections in respect to the slower moving Earth whether the Sun is a backdrop or not -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7U5VbasKr4&t=54s

The old language of 'conjunctions and oppositions' are hopelessly adrift of 21st century imaging descriptions for effectively that language doesn't take orbital comparisons into consideration like people truly should -

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=C%2F2020%20F3;old=0;orb=1;cov=0;log=0;cad=0

The ability to make orbital comparisons is ultimately crucial for appreciating meteorology where the dynamics of our planet influence climate and meteorological events individually and annually.

Popoutman

The above poster kept spouting their pseudoscience hypotheses on the Astronomy and Space forum, and was repeatedly warned about the same, so it looks as though they are now trying to gain traction on this section instead.

They have an uwavering belief that the standard orbital mechanics as currently understood and well proven is wrong, and it'e frustrating continually showing the above poster the error of their hypotheses.

Please, do not engage with this poster, they are proven to be *completely* unable to take part in sane discussions on the subject matter.

Tabnabs

This was not the thread I thought it would be...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE_z1--kPWI

M.T. Cranium

Mutual closest points and opposition are more or less the same thing although due to the elliptical nature of most planetary orbits, they can differ by a matter of hours or (in the case of Earth and Mars) up to 2-3 days.

The word conjunction can be confusing since it is used for several different orbital phenomena.

In technical terms, the conjunction of an outer planet occurs when it goes behind the Sun from our vantage point, and that is an approximation since orbital inclinations can mean that the said planet is not actually behind the Sun at any point. Opposition of an outer planet is the moment when we pass through the line connecting it to the Sun, or at least we are at right angles above or below said line.

The conjunction of two planets however refers to an apparent close approach in the sky, of course we all understand that this is perspective and there is no actual close approach. In colloquial terms, a planetary conjunction is an event played out over several weeks or months and the term is not meant to indicate just one moment in time, although the technical reference is the closest separation the planets appear to have in the sky.

For the two inner planets, it is the earth at opposition to them when we have "inferior conjunction", the event where the inner planet overtakes us heading past the Sun from our perspective. Their orbital inclinations are quite significant and only rarely do they actually pass in front of the solar disk. Venus just had two of those events in June of 2004 and 2012. Mercury has them if inferior conjunction is around early May or November. Otherwise inferior conjunction also has a component of the inner planet going above or below the solar disk (all out of sight in the glare of the Sun, all illumination of the inner planets then being on their sunward side). Superior conjunction is when either of the inner planets passes behind the Sun (same caveats about some vertical displacement being likely).

The terms opposition and conjunction have been in use in astronomy for several centuries now. They are easy to understand once you know their definitions, and don't need modernizing, in my opinion, but if you feel they do, please take it up with astronomers, I am not in charge of anything in either that science or the atmospheric sciences for that matter, just collateral damage in both cases.

Assumptions or implications of what I don't know or don't understand are becoming tiresome and cannot be tested by anyone reading your posts, nor does anyone really care one way or the other. But if you're saying I didn't know opposition was closest approach, then you would be quite mistaken. I am also familiar with orbital dynamics including the different inclinations of the planets and major asteroids.

Did you know that the earth's Moon follows the ecliptic plane and does not orbit in the equatorial plane as do the moons of the outer planets? This is one reason why astronomy developed that concept you keep slagging, right ascension (and declination) as a parallel observational framework for celestial latitude and longitude which are based on the ecliptic plane. For example, at the summer solstice, the Sun is at celestial latitude zero but declination 23.4 degrees.

Right ascension is a system that begins at the vernal equinox position (where the Sun crosses the equator north) and has 24 hours as opposed to the 360 degrees of celestial longitude (which also starts at that same point). So a right ascension of 6 hours, roughly the boundary of Orion and Gemini, runs through the summer solstice position, while the celestial longitude of that would be around 90 degrees.

It's simply two different systems projected onto the sky from two different equators, and astronomers (as far as I know) use them both and understand the differences. They are not (as you imply) confused about or ignorant of any of the details of earth's orbital dynamics, in fact, they (over many centuries) discovered them. You only know about them because of that discovery.

So go off now and argue your obscure points with them, please, I don't think the weather forum is really the place for your anti-Newton crusade, even if you're right, and I think you're just mistaken about what other people know, as I said before, it's not a problem of what you know or don't know, but what you think others know or don't know.

endacl

You do know there’s no point in arguing with stupid M.T.?

Poster is best ignored. Don’t waste your time.

murfo

Tabnabs wrote: »

This was not the thread I thought it would be...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE_z1--kPWI

i'll take a Satan (Live) please

oriel36

Nothing more wonderful than the ability to watch Venus pass between the slower moving Earth and stationary Sun (in retrograde motion) while Mercury passes behind the Sun in direct motion -

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

This observation and interpretation is new, after all, it requires a satellite tracking with the Earth's orbital motion to capture the events. The reason the stars change position from left to right of the Sun is due to the Earth's own orbital motion.

The orientation of the North polar latitude as an orbital component of the Earth and that it remains fixed in the same direction in space throughout the year introduces observers to the polar day/night cycle and it's rotational cause. It leads to that productive fact that when daily rotation and all it's effects are subtracted, the planet still turns once each year to the Sun and in combination with daily rotation is responsible for the seasons.

Most people are cool about these new insights and so am I. That is what it means to be confident and competent with a love of inspirational things free of pretense.

Nabber

To be fair this is in the wrong forum, the only reason to add here is for discussion on viewing conditions for astronomy. Which this post is clearly not about.

Much is a repeat of what is already in the astronomy forum as a poster has pointed out.

Supercell

oriel36 are you a bot?

Popoutman

No, not a bot, just a user that appear to be misguided and trying to be evangelical about something that's just plain wrong.

It's also possible that they've re-registered over the past decade to evade moderation, but I can't speak to that, that's based on other conversations on the other previously-frequented forums they've been continually posting on in the past.

Either way, best left either on ignore, or just plain ignored. Never any point in actually engaging, as they've proven to be either wilfully unwilling (or genuinely unable) to show they can learn and change a viewpoint - even in the face of overwhelming correct evidence.

oriel36

Nabber wrote: »

To be fair this is in the wrong forum, the only reason to add here is for discussion on viewing conditions for astronomy. Which this post is clearly not about.

Much is a repeat of what is already in the astronomy forum as a poster has pointed out.

You are generally a fair person and I understand your position entirely. As far as the insight goes, it incorporates meteorology by virtue that the motions of the planet and specific traits create variations in the day/night cycle and annual cycle.

The demonstration that the Earth orbits the Sun is straightforward enough from a satellite tracking with the Earth's orbital motion -

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

The North polar surface point tracks the motion of Polaris parallel to the orbital plane over the course of an orbit and so does the entire surface likewise hence the conclusion that in the absence of daily rotation and all its effects, the entire surface has a separate day/night cycle coincident with the orbital cycle of the Earth.

My race is run here so thanks for being fair.

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

This is one reason why astronomy developed that concept you keep slagging, right ascension (and declination) as a parallel observational framework for celestial latitude and longitude which are based on the ecliptic plane. For example, at the summer solstice, the Sun is at celestial latitude zero but declination 23.4 degrees.*

Most here are sycophants and that is fine, however, there are also Irish who are fair and unlikely to be dazzled with ' clockwork solar system' crap like that. For instance, the change in position of the stars from an evening appearance to morning appearance is the basis of all timekeeping but more importantly, the demonstration that the Earth orbits the Sun as the stars change position from left to right of the Sun and parallel to the orbital plane -

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

Nobody is asked to go further as it appeals to their normal judgment of motions but as the satellite imaging is relatively new, then so are all the other explanations. From experience, people like it so much that the normal objections are dropped apart from these forums which still hold on to the idiotic attempt of the 17th century Royal Society academics to use RA/Dec to model planetary motions.

It is impossible to research weather and climate without first putting the Earth's motions in context of its position in the solar system. It is this and this alone that distinguishes genuine research from celestial sphere bluffing that you are engaged in. People looking to you for clarity and going to be met with antiquated lingo that entertains those who are engaged in magnification rather than developed reasoning involved in intepretations.

Again, the sycophants will come to your rescue while others will be dazzled by homocentric terms you sprinkle over your descriptions. Thankfully, a larger group outside this forum grasp what is being said and that the Earth's motions are central to astronomy and meteorology the way it should be.

---

* This is for those who can. The original modeling of Copernicus and Kepler was based on the apparent direct motion of the Sun through the constellations inherited from the era of Ptolemy -

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


The 17th century dummies tried to run their RA/Dec framework of daily rotation hence a ridiculous 'wandering' Sun -

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


It is why Copernicus, Galileo and some of their contemporaries could make orbital comparisons without having to deal with daily rotational inputs (stellar circumpolar motion).

Having to deal with historical forensics is really unnecessary and bluffers can't keep up with what is being described, however, in this instance the real innovation is shifting the apparent motion of the Sun through the field of background stars annually to the productive apparent change in position of the stars from an even appearance to a dawn appearance of rather from left to right of the central/stationary Sun.

Gaoth Laidir

I thought you said your race here is run? Then you come back for more, as you've done on other threads too.

oriel36

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I thought you said your race here is run? Then you come back for more, as you've done on other threads too.

You hardly think I wish to continue presenting the historical and technical details among those who can't interpret something which is already accepted elsewhere, at least in outlines. It would be rude not to present the connections between the planet's motions in respect to weather and climate to an Irish audience depending on whether they can navigate their way through imaging and animated graphics to arrive at specific conclusions. I do not know what type of person finds the demonstration of the Earth's orbital motion uninspiring, after all, the demonstration was always implicit in time lapse -

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

Anyone would think the demonstration was offensive !!!.

I am Irish and this fundamentally is an Irish forum even if others imagine it is their own personal playground with adoring Irish acolytes. Unfortunately you and many others cannot deal with the different frameworks and references which constitute planetary motions and especially the new one which subtracts any daily rotational component thereby allowing orbital comparisons -

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

The best I can do is that observers are out of touch but mark well that anyone who attempts bluster with that celestial sphere RA/Dec crap is no friend of weather or planetary climate.

If you or anyone else wants to whine then call Joe Duffy.

Gaoth Laidir

oriel36 wrote: »

You hardly think I wish to continue presenting the historical and technical details among those who can't interpret something which is already accepted elsewhere, at least in outlines. It would be rude not to present the connections between the planet's motions in respect to weather and climate to an Irish audience depending on whether they can navigate their way through imaging and animated graphics to arrive at specific conclusions. I do not know what type of person finds the demonstration of the Earth's orbital motion uninspiring, after all, the demonstration was always implicit in time lapse -

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

Anyone would think the demonstration was offensive !!!.

I am Irish and this fundamentally is an Irish forum even if others imagine it is their own personal playground with adoring Irish acolytes. Unfortunately you and many others cannot deal with the different frameworks and references which constitute planetary motions and especially the new one which subtracts any daily rotational component thereby allowing orbital comparisons -

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

The best I can do is that observers are out of touch but mark well that anyone who attempts bluster with that celestial sphere RA/Dec crap is no friend of weather or planetary climate.

If you or anyone else wants to whine then call Joe Duffy.

Can someone finally put this guy out of his misery? These posts are getting more lunatic by the day. Complete and utter waffle.

Danno

I am locking this thread for a wee while. There is too much condescending from each other to warrant continuation on what should be a intuitive debate and discussion. Perhaps a week or so to cool the jets - on both sides?