The great astronomical correction

oriel36 · 29-02-2020 9:45am

It sometimes happens that the most intricate reasoning requires those with the higher levels of appreciation as with music and nature. In this case, for the purposes of knowing why the planet turns 365 1/4 times per orbit or where the foundations of timekeeping come from, it all begins with a parent astronomical observation -

".. 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

All leap day explanations, other than this one, begin with an impossible point of departure but yet again, it takes a more appreciative person to work through the details as this day and rotation of the Earth closes out 4 orbital circuits as the 1461 day/rotation.

oriel36 · 29-02-2020 10:30am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

You introduced something inappropriate as the explanation requires only the proportion of rotations enclosed within four annual circuits of the Sun and how it is derived from an exquisite astronomical observation in antiquity. It was included in the previous post so should have been clear for those who genuinely wish to put February 29th in context -

"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."

Dealing with inane comments or graffiti only invites more of the same from the forum's bouncers/moderators so easier to deal with those who actually have genuine objections.

Esel · 29-02-2020 6:57pm

Will you be taking a 4 year break now that Feb 29th is nearly over? Please say yes.

29-02-2020 9:13pm

Blimey, having stumbled upon this thread, and it being a subject of interest to me, I just wanted to say that I don’t think a day is added every four years. IIRC, for it to be a leap year at the start of a new century, the number has to be divisible by 400. Hence, 2000 was a leap year, 1900 was not, and neither will 2100 be one.

Incidentally, I have come across a large number of words I had never heard in my 60+ years on this “small blue dot”. Wow, as some might say

oriel36 · 29-02-2020 10:30pm

Esel wrote: »

Will you be taking a 4 year break now that Feb 29th is nearly over? Please say yes.

You know what Bob Marley said - " the people who are trying to make the world worse never take a day off and neither do I".

The significance of this day, this day/night cycle and the rotation behind it represents a proportion of 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits or 365 1/4 to one orbital circuit.

The people making this world worse insist on 1465 rotations for the same four orbital circuits hence can't deal with the astronomical event where Sirius , in changing position from left to right of the central Sun due solely to the orbital motion of the Earth, constitutes an orbital marker with its first dawn appearance and subsequently the number of rotations within an orbital circuit.

Zubeneschamali · 29-02-2020 10:51pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I
Incidentally, I have come across a large number of words I had never heard in my 60+ years on this “small blue dot”. Wow, as some might say

Fair warning: you are not the only one in this thread who does not understand those words, and at least one of the others will never admit as much.

But you can learn, as long as you don't take anything here as gospel.

oriel36 · 29-02-2020 11:05pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fair warning: you are not the only one in this thread who does not understand those words, and at least one of the others will never admit as much.

But you can learn, as long as you don't take anything here as gospel.

The significance of February 29th covers the 1461 days and rotations back to March 1st 2016 and this owes its existence to a specific astronomical event using proof that the Earth orbits the Sun.

Then they are the hapless who lack the insight which puts the extra rotation in context of the 6 hours of rotation annually which corresponds also to 6 hours of orbital motion hence the extra day and rotation naturally picks up the 24 hours orbital distance and motion lost over the previous four cycles of 365 days.

Astronomers are a certain type, it requires a spark of inspiration to appreciate the celestial arena and dynamics as a perceptive quality whereas others just conjure things up in the absence of that perception like the ridiculous 'solar vs sidereal' fiction -

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1904PA.....12..649B/0000649.000.html

Some people acquire the perceptive state of astronomers and astronomy with humility whereas other are lost to radicalisation of those who are not astronomers and try impose their own version of motion and structure like that awful version above. In other words, some people will enjoy how the daily and orbital motions of the Earth dictate the calendar framework from first principles based on certain observations and so long as the observer doesn't oppose the flow of that narrative, they should go on to develop their own appreciation from different angles.

ps200306 · 01-03-2020 3:18am

oriel36 wrote: »

...the ridiculous 'solar vs sidereal' fiction...

You really, really have a hard time comprehending different frames of reference, don't you? It's especially ironic since the one you are obsessed with fixes the sun in position but sets the entire rest of the universe off on a merry annual waltz. What's more, it has a drunken conductor who speeds the whirling stars 10% above the average tempo in January, and slows them down in July.

The sidereal frame fixes the stars, so that only the sun goes on an uneven accelerating and decelerating whirl. It seems much more organised to me, but then there's no point choosing favorites as both are fictions. On the grandest scale everything other than the Hubble flow is a peculiar motion.

oriel36 · 01-03-2020 10:20am

ps200306 wrote: »

You really, really have a hard time comprehending different frames of reference, don't you?

That 'frames of reference' lingo is inherited from the early 20th century but its real origin is back in the late 17th century where the real problems arose and further back to the objections raised around the Galileo affair where the validity between the Ptolemaic framework and heliocentric system was front and centre.

This thread is organised around the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits hence there is no choice when it comes to discerning the parent observation where the first annual appearance of a star fixes the Earth's orbital position in space in its journey around the Sun. Without the additional day and rotation, it would be impossible to make sense of the time lapse where the stars move from an evening to morning appearance or more specifically from left to right of the Sun and parallel to the orbital plane -

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

As the Earth varies in orbital speed, the change in position of the background stars is uneven so why adopt a rotating celestial sphere of stars directly with daily rotation where there is no reference for a variable change in position of stars from horizon to horizon ! -

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

If you cannot adopt the more productive framework where there is no circumpolar motion as provided by the Lasco C3 camera tracking with the Earth's orbital motion then , unfortunately, it is you and your colleagues who have difficulties with reference frameworks. I was prepared to state that the RA/Dec celestial sphere is useful for predicting astronomical events as dates and times within the 24 hour day but meaningless when discerning the structure of the solar system or the wider universe but most disruptive when relating cause and effect between planetary dynamics and Earth sciences.

What you call 'frames of reference' is really a creation of Victorian mathematicians relying on the original and more destructive approach of Newton in respect to the use of timekeeping and astronomy -

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391-600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved/

There is no harm peeling back the layers of damage mathematicians inflicted on astronomy over the last few centuries but then again it is not attacking people as they are unfamiliar with this history. As far as I am concerned, it is more important to work with contemporaries so long as they have not been railroaded into accepting ideologies from different eras like cheerleaders as opposed to genuine innovators who can work with contemporary imaging and information.

01-03-2020 10:37am

Right. I’m going to devote some time to reading this thread thoroughly, and trying to figure out what’s actually being said, and why.

01-03-2020 11:23am

OK, so that’s done now.

I have read an enormous amount of repetition, watched a loop from SOHO a number of times before I copped on that it was the same each time, and had a look at a few topics online such as axial precession, heliacal rising (which even the poor autocorrect keeps trying to call “helical”) read Canopus decree - at least in part, and I now know what a hapax legomenon is. I’m just waiting for the chance to use it.

Seriously, I take my hat off to those posting what now, at least at first pass, seems a fact based view on a number of relatively complex concepts. It’s a fascinating subject, and I feel I’ve learned something about a matter that has always been of interest to me. Thank you, especially to ps200306 and Zubeneschamali

oriel36 · 02-03-2020 12:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I have read an enormous amount of repetition, watched a loop from SOHO a number of times before I copped on that it was the same each time

Astronomy-by-satellite is not for everyone while others will take to it easily as they become familiar with the narrow corridor which is normally out of sight during that period between dawn and twilight.

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

The time lapse is not the same each time as Mercury is currently brightening in its phase before exiting the corridor and won't be seen again until it is seen moving behind the Sun around the same time as Venus will pass between the Earth and the stationary Sun as these planets did in 2012 -

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

Contributors have not sufficiently understood that this astronomy-by-satellite is for those who can interpret observations in context of a central Sun and moving planets hence all the downplaying and diminution of astronomers and astronomy inherited from other eras are ineffective.

In terms of daily rotation and the orbital cycle, come March 1st 2021, the orbital distance of 6 hours and 1/4 rotation will be omitted as we gauge the orbital cycles by the number of rotations across 4 orbital circuits. This is a point of departure for many avenues of research so those who adhere to celestial sphere software like stellarium as a true reflection of planetary motions, especially ours, are fooling themselves and others who know no better.

I don't feel sorry for you that you can't see something new every day with the SOHO Lasco C3 camera, I do feel sorry for those who can but have yet to experience this type of astronomy. It all depends on the input of the Earth's orbital motion and the change in position of the background stars parallel to the orbital plane thereby setting the Sun up as a central reference.

oriel36 · 03-03-2020 9:02pm

Normally there would be a considerable amount to consider, however, stellarium enthusiasts are unlikely to appreciate the subtle distinctions and changes in the positions of the stars when freed of the Earth's daily rotation or what is effectively astronomy-by-satellite.

In terms of orientation, the Northern hemisphere view is the more accurate and productive as the stars change position parallel to the orbital plane from left to right of the stationary Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRzqNK-1IHI

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Pleiades_large.jpg

The Southern hemisphere observers see the constellations upside down from the standpoint of the orbital change in positions where all circumpolar motion or RA/Dec factors are subtracted.

ps200306 · 06-03-2020 2:15pm

oriel36 wrote: »

Normally there would be a considerable amount to consider, however, stellarium enthusiasts are unlikely to appreciate the subtle distinctions and changes in the positions of the stars when freed of the Earth's daily rotation or what is effectively astronomy-by-satellite...

Tell me, Gerald ... have you ever actually used Stellarium? You know you can advance the time by sidereal days, effectively eliminating diurnal rotation? Or you can fix any object at the centre of the view. Place the Sun there and you will see very much what you see from SOHO ... except without the limitations of the narrow fixed field of view, the short time span, and the solar radiation knocking lumps off your camera sensor. You really should try it. Expand your horizons, so to speak.

oriel36 wrote: »

In terms of orientation, the Northern hemisphere view is the more accurate and productive ... The Southern hemisphere observers see the constellations upside down ...

Try flipping your laptop screen upside down. Now the southern hemisphere view is the right one! Actually, none of them is right, as the constellations don't have a fixed orientation for observers on Earth. The Pleiades look a bit like that for a northern observer when they cross the meridian. They stand on their tail when rising and on their head when setting.

But the SOHO view of the Pleiades is not quite right either, being rotated a little anti-clockwise. I'm surprised such an astute satellite astronomer missed that. What's more, the stars don't move directly left to right. Have a look at the sequence from 0:25 to 0:50 in the video below. Follow any star entering from the bottom left corner. Does it travel straight across the screen? Just before the end of the sequence, your faves the Pleiades appear at top left. They drift upward, trying to escape at the top of the screen.

That's because SOHO isn't aligned with the ecliptic, it's aligned with the solar equator which is tilted 7.25 degrees to the ecliptic. If you didn't find coordinate systems so offensive, you'd know that SOHO has its own*.

* From SOHO's standard operating procedures manual:

Solar rotation axis

The solar rotation axis will be calculated using the Carrington ephemeris elements. These elements define the inclination of the solar equator to the ecliptic as 7.25 degrees, and the longitude of the ascending node of the solar equator on the ecliptic as $gif.latex?%2875.76+0.01397%5Ctimes%20T%29%5Cdegree$ , where T is the time in years from J2000.0.

The solar rotation axis used for alignment of the SOHO spacecraft will be determined from the Carrington ephemeris elements. The Experiment Interface Document Part A (Issue 1, Rev 3) lists the longitude of the ascending node of the solar equator as 75.62° and the position of the pole of the solar equator in celestial coordinates as 286.11° right ascension and 63.85° declination. This definition is consistent with a solar rotation axis determined from the Carrington elements for a date of 1 January 1990. As mentioned in the EID Part A, this information must be updated for the actual launch date.

Heliographic longitudes on the surface of the Sun are measured from the ascending node of the solar equator on the ecliptic on 1 January 1854, Greenwich mean noon, and are reckoned from 0 to 360° in the direction of rotation. Carrington rotations are reckoned from 9 November 1853, 00:00 UT with a mean sidereal period of 25.38 days, and are designated as $gif.latex?CR_%7B1903%7D$ etc.

Inter-instrument flag reference coordinates

The spacecraft optical axes are defined with respect to the optical alignment cube of the Fine Pointing Sun Sensor, with the optical X axis (X₀) nominally perpendicular to the spacecraft launcher separation plane and pointing from the separation ring through the spacecraft. The spacecraft optical Y axis (Y₀) is along the direction of the solar panel extension with positive Y₀ pointing from the interior of the spacecraft towards the UVCS instrument.

The orientation of the SOHO spacecraft is planned to have the spacecraft optical X axis (X₀) pointing towards the photometric center of the Sun, and the spacecraft optical Z axis (Z₀) oriented towards the north ecliptic hemisphere such that the (X₀,Z₀) plane contains the Sun axis of rotation. As such the Y₀ axis will be parallel to the solar equatorial plane pointing towards the east (opposite to the solar rotation direction). ESA will be responsible for achieving this orientation with the misalignment margins defined in the EID-A...

oriel36 · 07-03-2020 9:36am

ps200306 wrote: »

Try flipping your laptop screen upside down. Now the southern hemisphere view is the right one! Actually, none of them is right, as the constellations don't have a fixed orientation for observers on Earth. The Pleiades look a bit like that for a northern observer when they cross the meridian. They stand on their tail when rising and on their head when setting.

In this case, the principle refers not just to the orbital orientation of the stars to the Sun using a left/right marker for the Earth's orbital motion but also the relationship of individual stars to the galactic structure for some stars will be closer to the galactic centre than others.

The satellite tracking with the Earth's orbital motion is free from daily rotation and any hemispherical concerns so that leaves the direction of the Earth as the main factor in assigning a left/right to the stationary Sun, after all, observers should know by now why stars go from an evening appearance (left) to dawn appearance (right) with stars close to the orbital plane out of view for a number of weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRzqNK-1IHI

It is an astronomical beachhead and a project rather than a finished article so all the observer does is make allowances for the limitations of the satellite, the quality of its imaging, the rough tracking and things like that. The observer no longer has to deal with hemispherical concerns but neither are they trapped by them in a celestial sphere framework where there is no pretense to structural depth perception or long term observations rendered into structural context. Celestial sphere software like stellarium is excellent for relative positions of celestial objects to each other as dates and times within those dates.

For the purpose of this thread, the first step is subtracting any daily rotational and hemispherical component so the curtain rises on the astronomical symphony of timekeeping and orbital comparisons in a stationary Sun centred system.

Thanks for the accompanying video by the way as it is informative up to a point, however, the use of the material here is original hence a level playing field.

The great astronomical correction

Comments