Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The great astronomical correction

Options
  • 30-01-2020 10:20am
    #1
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭


    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.


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #5
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #6
    coylemj
    Registered Users Posts: 25,355 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #8
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #9
    slade_x
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 1,423 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #10
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #11
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #13
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #14
    ThunderCat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,385 ✭✭✭ThunderCat


    Not this again.


  • Options
    #15
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭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: 2%29. Since the field of view is thirty solar radii, the fraction of the sky that is ever visible is gif.latex?%5Csin%287.5%5Cdegree%29 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.


  • Options
    #16
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #17
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #18
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #19
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #20
    sbs2010
    Registered Users Posts: 551 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #21
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #23
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #24
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #25
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


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


  • Options
    #26
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭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:

    PxnH9rM.png

    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.


  • Options
    #27
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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:

    PxnH9rM.png

    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


  • Options
    #28
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭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.

    PxnH9rM.png

    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


  • Options
    #29
    dermiek
    Registered Users Posts: 327 ✭✭dermiek


    I've a headache lol


  • Options
    #30
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    corny
    Registered Users Posts: 7,754 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement