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

Mercury overtakes Jupiter

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    Astro-photographers have made good use of imaging over an extended period by taking pictures of Venus between twilight and dawn. The period in the following images of Venus as it runs an actual loop of the Sun is from July 2010 to January 2012.

    https://i.imgur.com/5adXFsD.png

    The narrow corridor is where Venus and Mercury are normally out of view as events happen at the central solar system within sunlight from dawn to twilight. The orbital satellite creates permanent solar eclipse conditions and fills in that corridor thereby completing an astronomical visual narrative -

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

    The grainy quality and the narrow band of view looks quaint but I hope it is the beginning of a larger project our era deserves.


  • Options
    #63
    Popoutman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Popoutman


    I remember this poster in the past, some years ago, with the exact same lack of any semblance of understanding about decent scientific principles, cut and past trolling, and utterly pointless dogmatic responses.

    Back then, the troll was banned iirc.

    In short "oriel36", you are not correct in your assertions in this thread. You're almost close to showing an understanding about how things work in reality, but unfortunately managing to miss the mark by a country mile.

    I would suggest you build a model in 3d using e.g. ping pong balls on sticks (or gain the use of an orrey) and build out the scenarios you describe. It may assist you in understanding your knowledge and understanding shortcomings in this particular instance.

    The thread would be entertaining if it was not for the amount of simply incorrect ideas that keep being banged on about by "oriel36"


  • Options
    #64
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭ps200306


    It turns out the whole premise of the thread is flawed. The ability to see a planet at inferior conjunction is not new in the satellite era. Venus can pass more than 8 degrees of ecliptic latitude from the Sun at inferior conjunction. When the ecliptic is tilted away from normal with respect to the horizon, Venus can then be seen with the naked eye a couple of days either side of the conjunction as both a morning and evening star. The ancients would have seen this. And with binoculars -- or Galileo's telescope -- it can be seen at conjunction. So much for the "astronomical symphony" that only SOHO can show.

    Here's a great article by the inestimable Joe Rao about such an occurrence in 2009, mentioning that it also happened in 2001. This paper from 1971 shows that Venus can be seen in transition from evening to morning star when it is above 7° ecliptic latitude from the Sun. And the table in the article shows that this occurs twice every eight years, two years apart. It last occurred in March 2017 and will occur next in August 2023.

    Here's Stellarium's view of the morning of March 25th, 2009:

    h3bwMDn.png?1

    And here's the evening of the same day (I had to switch off the landscape as Stellarium had trees/hills in the way):

    RO9jNXS.png?1

    And here's the actual conjunction on the evening of March 27th. I switched off the atmosphere for the clearest view, and switched on an ecliptic grid which illustrates how Venus's high ecliptic latitude in combination with the horizontal tilt of the ecliptic puts it in a visible position at conjunction:

    8cm2wxo.png?1

    Here's a solar system view of the event:

    PT7m4Rg.png

    So it's not true that there's no business like SOHO business. SOHO ain't the only show in town.


  • Options
    #65
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    Most of the objections have been covered so as it is a project, it is really up to others to expand and improve on what has been presented. There are any number of issues to cover but the low hanging fruit has been covered to allow familiarity with the changes needed when filling in the corridor when the faster moving planets travel back and forth in front and behind the central/stationary Sun while the slower moving planets also travel behind the Sun but will always be seen to move from left to right as Saturn is presently doing -

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

    A tip for observers. The distance between observer and horizon acts as a natural Sun visor so we see events to the left of the Sun as an evening appearance and to the right of the Sun as a morning appearance with special attention to the orbital comparisons of positions and distances as seen from a moving Earth -

    https://www.theplanetstoday.com/

    If that is too difficult then appreciate a planetary transit where the faster planets and only the faster moving planets transition from left to right at the point they overtake our slower moving planet further out -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7U5VbasKr4&t=15s

    The SOHO Lasco C3 camera expands that perspective across days so people no longer have to wait 100 years so see Venus overtake the slower moving Earth with the central/stationary Sun in view but can appreciate it every few years or so. The last time Venus overtook the Earth with the central Sun as a backdrop was 2012 so Venus can be seen entering the narrow corridor when it is normally out of sight -

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


    The change in position of the stars from left to right of the stationary Sun due to the Earth's orbital motion sets the Sun up as a central reference so as Venus moves faster than the Earth, Venus moves quicker than the change in position of the stars which our astronomical ancestors would have recognised as retrograde motion when the planet was visible as it traveled between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth.


  • Options
    #66
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭ps200306


    oriel36 wrote: »
    The SOHO Lasco C3 camera expands that perspective across days so people no longer have to wait 100 years so see Venus overtake the slower moving Earth with the central/stationary Sun in view but can appreciate it every few years or so. The last time Venus overtook the Earth with the central Sun as a backdrop was 2012 so Venus can be seen entering the narrow corridor when it is normally out of sight
    SOHO provides no such view. The occulting disc of the C3 coronagraph is 3.7 times the width of the Sun. The Sun is never in view. But as you mentioned yourself, the horizon acts as a sun visor. So earthbound observers can see Venus pass through inferior conjunction at least twice every eight years without the need for any spacecraft.


    oriel36 wrote: »
    The change in position of the stars from left to right of the stationary Sun due to the Earth's orbital motion sets the Sun up as a central reference so as Venus moves faster than the Earth, Venus moves quicker than the change in position of the stars which our astronomical ancestors would have recognised as retrograde motion when the planet was visible as it traveled between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth.
    Venus is only in retrograde for a fraction of the time that it "travels between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth". For some of that passage it is in direct motion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    ps200306 wrote: »
    Venus is only in retrograde for a fraction of the time that it "travels between the stationary Sun and the slower moving Earth". For some of that passage it is in direct motion.

    Venus passes between the slower moving Earth and stationary/central Sun which my astronomical ancestors recognised as retrograde motion because the change in position of Venus is faster than the change in position of the stars due to the orbital motion of the Earth -

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

    I so admire the original geocentric and first heliocentric astronomers who only recognised a framework where the Sun moved directly through the constellations hence their language of conjunctions, oppositions, elongations and so on has stature whereas the Stellarium modelers have the Sun wander through the constellations in an RA/Dec motion -

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

    As the Earth will catch up with the slower moving Jupiter and Saturn in a number of months, their different direct/retrograde motions will be seen once more as the Earth overtakes those outer planets thereby causing them to fall behind in view -

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

    In this case a stationary background field of stars is needed where a stationary Sun is inferred rather than observed, after all, it is the Earth's own orbital motion relative to the slower moving planets in larger circumferences that creates the spectacle.

    Dual perspectives of direct/retrogrades are present and those who are genuine astronomers will love the challenges involved in piecing together the components of these separate perspectives as an addition to the work of the original heliocentric astronomers.


  • Options
    #68
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭ps200306


    oriel36 wrote: »
    Venus passes between the slower moving Earth and stationary/central Sun which my astronomical ancestors recognised as retrograde motion because the change in position of Venus is faster than the change in position of the stars due to the orbital motion of the Earth...
    All these posts later and you are still categorically wrong. Nobody (except you, in error) has ever recognised the entire passage of Venus from left to right across the Sun as retrograde motion because it is not retrograde motion. The change in position of Venus is not faster than the change in position of the stars throughout this passage.

    Venus changes from direct to retrograde motion and back again, all while moving left to right across the Sun. Here is the animation for you yet again, slowed down specially for you and limited to the passage of the inferior planet across the Sun. You can watch it as many times as you want. Who knows -- one day it might sink in. There is no RA/Dec involved whatsoever, as you are wont to complain about. It is simply the consequence of differential circular motion:

    https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qo78piomng


  • Options
    #69
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    I admire the first heliocentric astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus too much to descend into anti-inspirational objections from people who lack humility before the careful works of these people. They had only the stationary framework of Ptolemy to work off hence they could resolve the observed direct/retrogrades of the slower moving planets but not the direct/retrogrades of the faster moving Venus and Mercury -

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

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


    These great astronomers didn't have satellite imaging and they felt obligated to fit the heliocentric scheme into the stationary framework of Ptolemy, however, the direct/retrogrades of the faster moving Venus and Mercury as they run circuits behind and in front of the Sun are a result largely due to their motion in an actual loop where the change in position of the stars is necessary to account for the orbital motion of the Earth as the Sun becomes the stationary reference point -


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


    The animations are there to show the relationship of the planets to each other and to the central Sun as they travel around the Sun but the real time lapse is there for those who can pick up on the change of the stars from left to right of the stationary Sun in response to a moving Earth that no graphic can presently capture hence a project in it's infancy.

    https://www.theplanetstoday.com/


    Astronomy became small because men made themselves enchanted with a celestial sphere universe and identification/ magnification but threw away context in the process. Astronomy was lost for a number of centuries but is now back in a new form for those who can be inspired and inspiring. There is nothing I could or would do to make it something less.


  • Options
    #70
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭ps200306


    oriel36 wrote: »
    ...however, the direct/retrogrades of the faster moving Venus and Mercury as they run circuits behind and in front of the Sun are a result largely due to their motion in an actual loop ...
    This is utter nonsense, as can be proven by a simple observation. When an outer planet is seen in retrograde motion from an inner one, the inner one is simultaneously seen in retrograde from the outer one. That can be plainly seen from the animation where the two planets are connected by a single straight line. The extension of that line moves either one direction or the other with respect to the stars, and being a rigid line through both planets must do the same thing with respect to both. There is no phenomenon of an inferior retrograde separate to a superior one. They are one and the same event. Whatever the cause, it is quite obviously the same cause for both. One cannot be the result of something different to the other, so you are clearly mistaken.


    Just as a bonus for you, during the last inferior conjunction in which Venus passed more than 8 degrees of latitude from the Sun back in 2017, someone actually measured its retrograde motion against the stars. They explain -- as I also have -- why the retrograde is different from the passage between maximum elongations:


    https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/stargazers-corner/tracking-venus-retrograde-motion/



    oriel36 wrote: »
    ...the real time lapse is there for those who can pick up on the change of the stars from left to right of the stationary Sun in response to a moving Earth that no graphic can presently capture hence a project in it's infancy.
    What do you mean no graphic can capture it? Stellarium shows it much more realistically than the SOHO camera, in the same reference frame or any other that you choose.

    oriel36 wrote: »
    Astronomy became small because men made themselves enchanted with a celestial sphere universe and identification/ magnification but threw away context in the process. Astronomy was lost for a number of centuries but is now back in a new form for those who can be inspired and inspiring. There is nothing I could or would do to make it something less.
    Astronomy is and always has been a grand project. You are the one that appears to be stuck in a rut by repeating the same erroneous blather in each of your thirty-six postings on just this one thread so far.


  • Options
    #71
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    People who try to model planetary motions using RA/Dec can be left to their own devices as the Sun in a wandering Right Ascension motion defies the principles of astronomy whether geocentric or heliocentric -

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

    I no longer wish to see the assault on the original heliocentric astronomers as their works have seen enough distortions including the astronomical non sequitur applied by Newton which doesn't even measure up to the original conclusion for direct/retrograde motions of Copernicus in terms of the slower moving planets -

    "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
    stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
    always seen direct,..." Newton


    After going through the different perspectives which separate the faster and slower moving planets seen from a moving Earth, nothing could be more repulsive than dealing with the clockwork solar system modelers and their celestial sphere universe.


    To be fair, most accepted the principles I introduced in silence and I don't mind any objections but there is a limit to how I can deal with people who can't recognise the closed loop of Venus as it runs back and forth in front and behind the stationary Sun and not an open-ended illusory loop as with the slower moving planets.

    http://www.insideastronomy.com/uploads/gallery/album_7/med_gallery_40_7_128459.jpg


    I feel sorry for wider society as people who consider themselves astronomers are blocking the use of contemporary imaging which reveals an enjoyable picture -

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


    Maybe people here should take up birdwatching first as at least that productive hobby contains a great deal of context like migration patterns apart from mere magnification/identification. The same with astronomy in a space age.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,866 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    What is this Oriel guy actually trying to say out of interest? Ive read his ramblings in the Climate change thread and Ive read this thread and I still dont understand what point he's trying to make, is he actually confusing parallax and retrograde motion all that and coming to the conclusion the planets are changing speed/direction? Is that what he's actually trying to argue?

    He has the most bizarre posting style Ive ever encountered in many years of bulletin board usage, your eyes just slide off his posts, they are literally impossible to read.


  • Options
    #73
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,232 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    I think he just drops a little bouncy ball on his keyboard, crosses his fingers, and presses ‘post”.


  • Options
    #74
    coylemj
    Registered Users Posts: 25,331 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    Thargor wrote: »
    What is this Oriel guy actually trying to say out of interest? Ive read his ramblings in the Climate change thread .....

    Where he's now taking potshots at posters in this forum, he clearly feels he has a more sympathetic audience over there. Unlike the uncouth thugs he has to deal with in this forum......
    oriel36 wrote: »
    Such an eventful few weeks.

    In the astronomy forum I dealt with something which hasn't been touched since Copernicus where a few contributors threw the kitchen sink at what is a fairly straightforward explanation which divides perspectives of the faster and slower moving planets seen from Earth.

    As the main objectors started to comprehend what I was presenting, they simply pretended that I said something else and that is pretty uncouth despite the historical material and the works of Copernicus and Galileo I was dealing with and modifying.

    I guess this is how science is done these days but that is more the preserve of terrace thugs then gentlemen discussing topics in a reasonable way. Remarkable by any measure .

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112318162&postcount=1120


  • Options
    #75
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭ps200306


    oriel36 wrote: »
    People who try to model planetary motions using RA/Dec can be left to their own devices as the Sun in a wandering Right Ascension motion defies the principles of astronomy whether geocentric or heliocentric

    You are either being deliberately obtuse, or you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic. The picture below has no RA/Dec. What it has is the sun, centred and stationary -- EXACTLY LIKE THE SOHO CORONAGRAPH. In the animated Stellarium version the stars drift left to right -- EXACTLY LIKE THE SOHO CORONAGRAPH. The planets loop around the Sun -- EXACTLY LIKE THE SOHO CORONAGRAPH. The planets move in direct or retrograde motion -- EXACTLY LIKE THE SOHO CORONAGRAPH; the Sun is not "in a wandering Right Ascension motion", it is seen from a viewpoint that is co-orbiting with the Earth -- EXACTLY LIKE THE SOHO CORONAGRAPH.

    UNLIKE THE SOHO CORONAGRAPH there is no big occulting disc blotting out three solar diameters; you can view the entire orbits of all the planets; you can see when they transition from direct to retrograde and back (WHICH IS NOT WHEN THEY TRANSITION FROM BEHIND TO IN FRONT OF THE SUN OR VICE VERSA); you can set it to any date from thousands of years in the past to thousands of years in the future; you can measure ecliptic longitude and latitude and switch on a corresponding grid. You can also switch if off for obtuse people who don't understand that there are many different astronomical coordinate systems, and who whimper about RA/Dec and clockwork solar systems whenever a grid line appears.

    Apart from not being a live photographic image, the Stellarium picture is superior in every respect.

    tMTE0sm.png?1

    Your complaint about Newton is incoherent also. You quote the great works of the astronomers and invariably fail to understand the context. Your excerpt from the Principia comes immediately after Newton has stated Kepler's Second Law. He is merely stating the true and obvious -- that the radii to the planets progress around their ellipses without reversing direction as there are no retrogrades as viewed from a heliocentric frame.

    I think we will have to leave it here as you show no signs of comprehension, or of anything other than a desire to repeat the same incoherent assertions ad nauseam.


  • Options
    #76
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    Astronomy doesn't admit crude or thuggish behaviour so observers can judge for themselves where they stand in relation to the enjoyable narrative where a full account can be given for the faster moving Venus and Mercury seen from a slower moving Earth. Everyone else can be hysterical if they wish but the perceptions are fairly straightforward although the resolution of the direct/retrogrades for Venus and Mercury take a little familiarity.

    Copernicus accounted for the direct/retrograde motions of the slower moving planets using a stationary framework where the direct/retrograde motions of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are an illusion caused by the faster motion of the Earth overtaking them thereby causing them to temporarily fall behind in view. The perspective here is that putting the Earth between the orbit of Venus and Mars allowed these first heliocentric astronomers to infer a central Sun and allow them to link planetary motions to Earth sciences for the first time -

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

    Galileo added to this using a telescope by demonstrating the phases and size increases/decreases as Venus approaches and recedes from the slower moving Earth in our mutual orbits around the Sun with some people already putting this motion in context

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-6x3XRuWVg

    There are older ones showing the closed loop of Venus for those who still want to retain the old language of astronomy -

    https://nemfrog.tumblr.com/post/169579240385/the-phases-of-venus-a-new-manual-of-the-elements


    The next development is closing in the corridor each day where Venus is not in view due to its proximity to the central Sun much like presently where the even faster moving Mercury is traveling behind the Sun (at the time of writing) -

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


    The shortest time perspective is, of course, the planetary transits but with the SOHO lasco 3 camera creating permanent solar eclipse conditions, this is now optional as Venus and Mercury pass between the stationary Sun and slower moving Earth regularly even with the central Sun as a backdrop -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7U5VbasKr4&t=75s


    The links between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences have been relatively untouched as Copernicus had to make enormous compromises to fit his scheme into the framework of Ptolemy where the Sun moved directly through the constellations and the planets wandered. This is where it takes a more concerted effort as with two different perspectives partitioned by the slower and faster moving planets, the obstacles are removed and research can begin using the motions of the Earth free from the constraints of the framework of Ptolemy or the hideous monstrosity of late 17th century RA/Dec modeling.


  • Options
    #77
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭ps200306


    Thargor wrote: »
    ... is he actually confusing parallax and retrograde motion...?
    Yes. He believes that the retrogrades of the outer planets are illusory, but those of the inner planets are "real" because they correspond to forward and back loops around the Sun. He has never showed any hint of understanding that the retrogrades don't correspond to the near half of the orbit or to the whole passage from maximum eastern to western elongation, although lately he has started saying the retrogrades are largely due to loops around the Sun. That suggests he realised his mistake but can't bring himself to admit it.


  • Options
    #78
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    ps200306 wrote: »
    Yes. He believes that the retrogrades of the outer planets are illusory, but those of the inner planets are "real" because they correspond to forward and back loops around the Sun. He has never showed any hint of understanding that the retrogrades don't correspond to the near half of the orbit or to the whole passage from maximum eastern to western elongation, although lately he has started saying the retrogrades are largely due to loops around the Sun. That suggests he realised his mistake but can't bring himself to admit it.

    You are not familiar with the language of direct/retrogrades as without including the word 'direct', it is not possible to put the motions of the planets in context.

    As for largely it means that while Venus and Mercury are seen to run actual loops or circuits of the Sun, the input of the orbital motion of the Earth delays when Venus and Mercury are at their widest points before they begin to turn in front of the Sun or behind the Sun. The Earth is also moving so although the faster moving Venus and Mercury display their normal circuits, the perspective taken by astro-photographers in terms of phases and size/increases is slightly skewed from the actual motions of the faster planets on that delay account.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-6x3XRuWVg

    As a new project, there shouldn't be too much opposition to the means by which the Sun is set up as a central reference for the motions of the faster moving Venus and Mercury within that corridor where permanent solar eclipse conditions can be maintained by an orbiting satellite -

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

    If some people insist the stationary Sun is not there behind the satellite Sun visor then there are closer perspectives which include the change in position of the stars due to the orbital motion of the planet -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKFw2DeALfY

    All this has been covered before so I shrug with the repeated objection.


  • Options
    #79
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Thargor wrote: »
    What is this Oriel guy actually trying to say

    He sometimes hints that planets change speed during their orbits because of electromagnetism, but he never explains how because he always goes down a rabbit hole about retrogrades or the heliacal rising of Sirius or some such and never gets back to the electromagnetism thing.

    He also has a bee in his bonnet about Fomalhaut for some reason, I never got to the bottom of that one, either.


  • Options
    #80
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭ps200306


    oriel36 wrote: »
    ... observers can judge for themselves where they stand in relation to the enjoyable narrative where a full account can be given for the faster moving Venus and Mercury seen from a slower moving Earth. Everyone else can be hysterical if they wish but the perceptions are fairly straightforward although the resolution of the direct/retrogrades for Venus and Mercury take a little familiarity.
    They only take a little familiarity with 400 year-old astronomy.
    oriel36 wrote: »
    There are older ones showing the closed loop of Venus for those who still want to retain the old language of astronomy -

    https://nemfrog.tumblr.com/post/169579240385/the-phases-of-venus-a-new-manual-of-the-elements
    And here is where I think you have secretly realised your giant screw-up. You posted this:

    fri66eK.png

    This is from page 157 of Henry Kiddle's 1868 New Manual of the Elements of Astronomy, Descriptive and Mathematical. You cannot mistake that it marks the stationary points of Venus (i.e. the transitions from direct to retrograde motion and back) within the passage from maximum eastern to western elongation, not coincident with it. If any further doubt remains, refer to pages 165-166 of the same book:

    g2IfySB.png

    Retrograde motion is the passage from east to west with respect to the stars. Maximum eastern and western elongation are measured with respect to the Sun. Somewhat confusingly to the novice, Venus is actually travelling westward with respect to the stars during part of its passage eastward with respect to the Sun, and is therefore travelling in direct motion. The eastern stationary point marks the transition to retrograde, after which Venus is moving east with respect to both the stars and the Sun. Due to the orbital inclination of Venus, this transition will be seen as part of a loop against the stars. And just like the outer planets this apparent loop is entirely illusory, being the result of Venus overtaking Earth in its orbit, and during which Earth would be seen to be doing an equivalent retrograde loop from the perspective of Venus.

    Of course, you can't even see these stationary points in your SOHO LASCO view because its field of view is too narrow. So your nonsense theory that the SOHO viewpoint heralds a new era in astronomical understanding is just, well ... nonsense. It shows nothing that hasn't been known for 400 years. And indeed, it shows nothing that couldn't be seen since Galileo's time when Venus made its eight-yearly conjunctions at maximum ecliptic latitude (which are also mentioned in the above 150-year-old book).
    oriel36 wrote: »
    The links between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences have been relatively untouched as Copernicus had to make enormous compromises to fit his scheme into the framework of Ptolemy where the Sun moved directly through the constellations and the planets wandered. This is where it takes a more concerted effort as with two different perspectives partitioned by the slower and faster moving planets, the obstacles are removed and research can begin using the motions of the Earth free from the constraints of the framework of Ptolemy or the hideous monstrosity of late 17th century RA/Dec modeling.

    And you have just left out the most important part of what we call the "Copernican revolution". The Copernican model was wrong because of his adherence to circular orbits. The observations of Tycho and the mathematical insights of Kepler and Newton gave us our three-dimensional understanding of celestial mechanics. No new insight is offered by a view from one particular spacecraft. To even think so suggests that the builders of that craft had no idea what they would see until it reached its destination. This would be quaint if it were the thoughts of a naive schoolchild. An adult repeating the same nonsense forty times on one thread is laughably tragic.


  • Options
    #81
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,232 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    What will you do with yourself when the internet is full?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    ps200306 wrote: »
    They only take a little familiarity with 400 year-old astronomy.


    And here is where I think you have secretly realised your giant screw-up. You posted this:

    fri66eK.png

    This is from page 157 of Henry Kiddle's 1868 New Manual of the Elements of Astronomy, Descriptive and Mathematical. You cannot mistake that it marks the stationary points of Venus (i.e. the transitions from direct to retrograde motion and back) within the passage from maximum eastern to western elongation, not coincident with it. If any further doubt remains, refer to pages 165-166 of the same book:

    g2IfySB.png

    The link was posted as a concession for those who wish to retain the old language of planetary conjunctions and oppositions but it doesn't address the inputs which cause the stars to change position from left to right of the stationary Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth rather than the counter-productive notion of the Sun's motion through the constellations

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


    The direct/retrogrades of the slower moving planets require a stationary stellar background in order to conclude that their illusory direct/retrograde motions are as a result of the faster moving Earth overtaking them so the perspective is entirely based on relative speeds with a central Sun inferred. This is the Earth overtaking Saturn and Jupiter -

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

    This doesn't work for the faster Venus and Mercury as the Sun is constantly in view as a stationary reference point for their actual circuits of the Sun and seen presently as Mercury is in direct motion when it is furthest from the Earth and traveling behind the Sun -

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

    If people can't adjust to a central/stationary Sun to fill in the complete narrative then it is not a shortcoming in the genuine perspective but a deficiency in their own perspectives.

    It terms of relative speeds, the Earth's input into the circuits of Venus is minimal apart from delaying when those planets reach the points where they turn in front of the Sun or behind the Sun unlike the slower moving outer planets and the faster Earth where relative speeds are everything.

    The original heliocentric astronomers are allowed their views in the absence of satellite imaging and they would probably have understood immediately how to create a full astronomical narrative by splitting direct/retrogrades by perspectives and dependent on whether they move faster of slower or whether their orbital circumferences are smaller or greater than the Earth's.

    This is a special time in human history where satellite imaging makes so much possible so the objections of those who still adhere to the old astronomical language while modeling with a wandering RA/Dec Sun counts for nothing.


  • Options
    #83
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    oriel36 wrote: »
    It terms of relative speeds, the Earth's input into the circuits of Venus is minimal apart from delaying when those planets reach the points where they turn in front of the Sun or behind the Sun

    This is nonsense. Venus orbits the Sun every 225 days, but its synodic period is 584 days. Of this entire 584 days, in 2020 it only spends 43 days in retrograde.

    The picture in your head where it swings left and right of the sun evenly once per orbit is completely wrong.


  • Options
    #84
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    I feel sorry for students who can easily understand how the setup works for the faster moving Venus and Mercury whereas an altogether different perspective is needed for the slower moving Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the rest -

    https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

    When those images are converted into time lapse, as with Saturn and Jupiter being overtaken by the Earth, it is as easy as understanding a faster moving car in an inner lane overtaking slower moving cars in an outer lane seeing the slower cars temporarily fall behind in view -

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


    The faster moving Venus and Mercury require a different perspective as seen from a slower moving Earth but just as easy as watching faster moving cars lap a slower moving car in an outer lane with the central reference point in view along with visual helpers such as the transition of background objects from one side to the other as we make a circuit of the track with a stationary object at the centre.

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


    The objectors here don't even know their own language as it refers to the older astronomical frameworks with their strengths and shortcomings but, as always the case, for confident and competent people nobody needs to make a fuss for the sake of views that were deficient because of the lack of satellite coverage.

    Students will love it despite the obstructing behaviour of those who can't or would try to place obstacles in front of astronomical appreciation in the space age. This is not an appeal to 'think of the children' , this is whether a person values their own ability to interpret 21st century imaging because they can, because it is enjoyable and because they then can call themselves astronomers if that is what they wish.


  • Options
    #85
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭ps200306


    oriel36 wrote: »
    The link was posted as a concession for those who wish to retain the old language of planetary conjunctions and oppositions but it doesn't address the inputs which cause the stars to change position from left to right of the stationary Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth rather than the counter-productive notion of the Sun's motion through the constellations

    If you want to adopt a reference frame in which the Sun is stationary and the stars are drifting, you had better be careful about retrogrades which by definition are measured against the background stars. The definition of retrograde now translates to whether a planet is moving eastward faster or slower than the moving stars.
    oriel36 wrote: »
    This doesn't work for the faster Venus and Mercury as the Sun is constantly in view as a stationary reference point for their actual circuits of the Sun and seen presently as Mercury is in direct motion when it is furthest from the Earth and traveling behind the Sun.
    It also doesn't work for Venus and Mercury when they are closer and swinging inbound toward the Sun. They are still in direct motion until they reach their stationary point, travelling left to right across the Sun throughout but reversing direction with respect to the stars.
    oriel36 wrote: »
    If people can't adjust to a central/stationary Sun to fill in the complete narrative then it is not a shortcoming in the genuine perspective but a deficiency in their own perspectives.
    You're the one with the deficiency, and the inability to consider different reference frames. What's more, it's a blind spot so huge that you have repeated the same mistake forty times on this thread alone.
    oriel36 wrote: »
    This is a special time in human history where satellite imaging makes so much possible so the objections of those who still adhere to the old astronomical language while modeling with a wandering RA/Dec Sun counts for nothing.
    LOL. Keep playin' that same old tune. You should try a music career. Perhaps a re-release of the old classic, "I was Born under a Wanderin' RA/Dec Sun".



  • Options
    #86
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    I have so much admiration for the original heliocentric astronomers for many reasons but certainly the imaginative qualities which allowed them to envision the motions of the Earth through the resolution of the direct/retrogrades of the slower moving planets. Nowadays there is little imagination involved as time lapse condenses the spectacle to an easy understand form -

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

    It is this same technology in the space age which allows observers to add to the almost complete narrative for the faster Venus and Mercury as they move in an actual circuit of the Sun with Mercury presently moving behind the stationary Sun or in the case of the older time lapse, Mercury is moving from right to left and behind the Sun while Venus is moving from left to left between the slower moving Earth and central Sun -

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

    The process is simple enough - allow the change in position of the stars from left to right to represent the orbital motion of the Earth thereby setting up the central Sun as a reference for the motions of the faster moving planets.

    From 30 years experience, things are done differently today as opposed to the time of the first heliocentric astronomers. It is not necessarily acceptable but despite all the objections, the explanations of the faster Venus and Mercury have already made it into circulation and I have it often repeated back to me without including the careful principles which relate the stars to the moving Earth and Earth and the other planets to the central Sun.


  • Options
    #87
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭ps200306


    43 and counting...


  • Options
    #88
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭ps200306


    We are in the thick of things now. Mercury is moving in front of the Sun but still travelling in direct motion. Position 2 in the picture below is this Sunday. On Monday Mercury enters retrograde, and only a few days later becomes visible in the SOHO coronagraph (red markers) which therefore misses all the interesting action.

    PxnH9rM.png


  • Options
    #89
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    ps200306 wrote: »
    We are in the thick of things now. Mercury is moving in front of the Sun but still travelling in direct motion. Position 2 in the picture below is this Sunday. On Monday Mercury enters retrograde, and only a few days later becomes visible in the SOHO coronagraph (red markers) which therefore misses all the interesting action.

    PxnH9rM.png

    If you wish to use a graphic of the faster moving Mercury moving around the stationary Sun as seen from the slower motion of the Earth then hard to beat the wider perspective -

    https://www.theplanetstoday.com/


    That graphic does not contain the crucial information as to how the Sun is set up as a central/stationary reference by using the change in the position of the stars from left to right of the Sun rather than the Ptolemaic framework used by the original heliocentric astronomers who felt obligated and limited to the motion of the Sun directly through the background stars -

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


    Within the narrow corridor, Venus will pass between the slower moving Earth and the stationary Sun moving faster than the change in the position of the stars (hence observed retrograde motion in a geocentric framework) while Mercury will be seen travelling behind the Sun in direct motion in much the same way as Venus and Mercury did in 2012 -

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

    I think most people have already got it apart from the urban rednecks who can be best left to their own devices. I see where you are going with your point , however, that is playing fast and loose with the intent to demonstrate that the direct/retrogrades of the slower moving planets seen from a moving Earth differ from the direct/retrogrades of the faster moving Venus and Mercury. Once the partitioning is acknowledged, observers can dispense with the terms direct/retrogrades altogether and deal with motions and structure of the solar system as space age people.

    This is a project too and barely touched but that being said, thank you for your contributions when others would have sulked or posted inane comments.


  • Options
    #90
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    oriel36 wrote: »
    That graphic does not contain the crucial information as to how the Sun is set up as a central/stationary reference by using the change in the position of the stars from left to right of the Sun rather than the Ptolemaic framework used by the original heliocentric astronomers who felt obligated and limited to the motion of the Sun directly through the background stars


    Since retrograde motion is defined relative to the stars, the graphic is the crucial information.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    oriel36
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    The original heliocentric astronomers had to model direct/retrograde motions from a framework where the Sun moved directly through the constellations -

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

    In contrast, contemporary imaging allows observers to view the Sun as both central and stationary provided the background stars change position to that stationary Sun as a function of the Earth's orbital motion -

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

    The direct/retrogrades of the slower planets are altogether different as they use a stationary background stars as use the Earth's faster orbital motion to resolve the motions of the slower planets as they temporarily fall behind in view as the Earth overtakes them -

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


    Graphics help explain the relationship between the planets, including ours, and the central Sun while actual time lapse takes priority in affirming why a necessary partitioning is needed between faster and slower moving planets as see from Earth. It can be applied to Mars where the Earth becomes a faster moving planet along with Venus and Mercury.


Advertisement