| |
Main
Date: 24 May 2007 18:54:43
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Parallax by Day
|
Dear group,
Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
separated by 2370 km apart.
For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please see
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm .... someone please
provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
whatever else I may have missed.
Clear skies!
Anthony.
|
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2007 10:16:03
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
On May 28, 1:50 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The motion of the visble stars of our galaxy around a central axis
> > will change their orientation to the external galaxies,as you
> > creatures have the visible stars stuck on an astrological framework
> > there is no possibility of appreciating this great cycle,even in
> > principle.
>
> .
> No. This is not the case.
>
It is an absolute geometric certainty that you base you concepts on a
astrological/celestial sphere framework -
"PH=C6NOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun." Newton
When you are faced with silly quasi-geocentric statements like this
from Newton and especially when he invokes Kepler,you turn to what
Kepler actually said and especially as regards the 'periodic
times'.The periodic times argument is based on orbital comparisons and
it is a fully heliocentric argument in replacing the pre-Copernican
arrangement of the Sun between Venus and Mars with the Earth's orbital
motion.
It goes like this -
Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler
Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.
Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Johannes Kepler
I would not wish to use the wonderful argument of Kepler in support of
heliocentricity to be used to counter Newton's twisting of the
periodic times argument for a heliocentric/geocentric orbital
equivalency but at least people can see how the original 'periodic
times ' argument looks.
> Of course we can recognize that the "fixed" stars in the Milky Way
> galaxy really do move, slowly.
>
> Just as we realize that precession of the equinoxes is a real
> phenomenon.
>
> We still use the position of the equinoxes, or the "fixed stars", as a
> background, as a reference frame, because they move so slowly that
> they serve as *reasonably* fixed landmarks, but, naturally, a closer
> approximation to an inertial frame *is* possible through using distant
> galaxies as a reference.
>
> Even the galaxies, though, are in motion.
>
At the core of the Newtonian concepions for orbital motions beats an
astological heart created by Flamsteed.Linking axial rotation directly
to the stellar background is bad enough,the correlation is an
incredible leap by any stretch of the imagination,what encloses it in
a celestial sphere is the fact that a star return in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds of a 24 hour day only in the calendar system where
4 annual orbits are recknoed in a system of 3 years of 365 days and 1
year of 366 days.
In short,while Newtonj talked a system of 365.25 days he used
Flamsteed's calendrical framework which in turn amounts to an
astrological framework -
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
You have no reason to be hostile,I have had to go through these
difficult arguments that you can simply skip at will and whatever I
may say about Newton,one thing is certain,the way he reworked
astronomical things to suit his agenda he is consistent and makes it
possible to untangle what is correct from what is not.
> But we are talking, as I noted in a previous post, about a matter of a
> hundredth of a second per day, even with the largest correction, the
> one for precession. The precession cycle takes about 24,000 years.
> Compare that with the *one year* cycle that causes the difference
> between the 24 hour synodic day and the 23 hour and 56 minute sidereal
> day.
>
> If you advocate adopting the system of Tycho Brahe because you are
> annoyed that we sometimes ignore the small precession effect, you are
> straining out a gnat yet swallowing a camel. If that is not what you
> are doing, then your point is still a mystery to me.
>
> John Savard
The preccessional motion of the Earth is always,always,always the
most used to muddy the waters while the most immediate axial and
orbital motions are ignored,it is like an indoctrinated thumbsucking
tactic to call on preccession and for the most part it works.I can
simply compare the faster orbital motion of the Earth against the
slower motion of the outer planets to remove 3 centuries worth of
Newtonian rubbish but apparently nobody is interested -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Without appreciating what is occuring from a moving Earth you cannot
admire the Keplerian refinement which uses the orbital motion of the
Earth against that of Mars or the Romerian insight on finite light
distance which uses the orbital motion of the Earth against Jupiter.
You can bluff and bluster for 3 centuries,indeed you can do it for
another 3 centuries but ultimately it is not worth it.I have to find a
group who actually likes astronomy,its methids and its insights in
order to make the neccessary modifications.I cannot do in in an
empirical/astrological forum and that is that.
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2007 05:50:06
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
oriel36 wrote:
> The motion of the visble stars of our galaxy around a central axis
> will change their orientation to the external galaxies,as you
> creatures have the visible stars stuck on an astrological framework
> there is no possibility of appreciating this great cycle,even in
> principle.
.
No. This is not the case.
Of course we can recognize that the "fixed" stars in the Milky Way
galaxy really do move, slowly.
Just as we realize that precession of the equinoxes is a real
phenomenon.
We still use the position of the equinoxes, or the "fixed stars", as a
background, as a reference frame, because they move so slowly that
they serve as *reasonably* fixed landmarks, but, naturally, a closer
approximation to an inertial frame *is* possible through using distant
galaxies as a reference.
Even the galaxies, though, are in motion.
But we are talking, as I noted in a previous post, about a matter of a
hundredth of a second per day, even with the largest correction, the
one for precession. The precession cycle takes about 24,000 years.
Compare that with the *one year* cycle that causes the difference
between the 24 hour synodic day and the 23 hour and 56 minute sidereal
day.
If you advocate adopting the system of Tycho Brahe because you are
annoyed that we sometimes ignore the small precession effect, you are
straining out a gnat yet swallowing a camel. If that is not what you
are doing, then your point is still a mystery to me.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 25 May 2007 12:42:25
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
On May 25, 1:07 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> Ernie Wright wrote:
> > Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
>
> >>>>>>http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm
>
> >>>> The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)
>
> >> I get an estimate of 438,988 km for the distance of the moon from the
> >> earth when, in fact, it was 395,520 km at the time of photography. In
> >> other words, there is an error of approximately 10%.
>
> > I got an estimate of 443,368 km. This is assuming an image scale of
> > about 3.25"/pixel, which I got from the diameter of the Moon,
>
> > 557 pixels using the ruler tool in Photoshop CS2
> > 1812" according tohttp://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/diskmap.html
>
> > The distance between the two images of Regulus is 337 pixels = 1096".
>
> > Moon distance = (Selsey Athens distance / 2) / tan(1096"/2)
>
> > I think the error comes from assuming that the Selsey-Athens base of the
> > triangle is at right angles to the Earth-Moon vector. In general it
> > won't be. If tilting that line up to make it perpendicular shortens it
> > to about 2100 km, we get a very accurate estimate.
>
> Thanks for the feedback Ernie. My results vary slightly due to SkyMap
> Pro which indicates the moon had an apparent diameter of 1839.34" and
> the parallax angle which I estimated to be 1113.6". My estimate as to
> the distance also ignored the image scale I specified in an earlier post
> which for some reason is not correct and I must check as to the reason(s).
>
> Anyway, a nice exercise. Just ask Oriel.
>
> Anthony.
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is the orbital motion of the Earth along with Jupiter -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
The common heliocentric orbit provides the basis for the recognition
of the anomalous motion of Io insofar as the stretching distance
between Earth and Jupiter accounts for the irregular occultation of Io
using finite light speed as conditioning factor.
Of course,you and you buddies refuse to acknowledge orbital
comparisons and use a hypothetical observer on the Sun to account for
the motion of Jupiter -
"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
As the Mora Luminis of Roemer can only be appreciated by people who
recognise the orbital motion of the Earth,any lesser view such as
parallax is going to highlight that you have no astronomical pedigree
and attaching yourself to Newton's views which exclude orbital
comparisons does just that.
The Roemerian refinement is a wonderful addition to the original
working principles provided by Copernicus and does not involve the
background stars but only the motion of the Earth and that of
Jupiter.If you want to continue to make yourself look foolish then so
be it,at least others are getting the benefit of an education by
exposing yourselves as dull and dour astrologers hellbent on ignoring
orbital motions or rather retaining celestial sphere geometry.
Some of the English who recognise an enormous astronomical version of
Piltdown man in the making can easily become familiar with the orbital
motion of the Earth for the first time and at least try to make the
effort of rectifying matters.As for you,continue taking those nice
pictures of the analemma,do you hear,those nice pictures where a 24
hour clock determines the postion of the Sun !!!!!!.
|
| |
Date: 25 May 2007 12:20:27
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
On May 25, 7:02 pm, Ernie Wright <ern...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
> > [concerninghttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm]
>
> > Thanks for the feedback Ernie.
>
> Thanks to you and Pete for a fascinating collaborative exercise!
>
> I hope you'll forgive me now for blathering a bit, but it'll lead to a
> much better estimate of the Moon's distance derived from your images.
>
> We both got estimates of about 440,000 km, somewhat higher than the true
> distance of about 396,000 km, and I mentioned yesterday that most of the
> error is because the base of the triangle we're using, the line between
> Selsey and Athens, is skewed. The base we *should* be using is a line
> that directly faces the Moon.
>
> The situation looks something like this:
>
> . * Selsey
> . \
> . \ --------> to the Moon
> . \
> . * Athens
>
> The base we should be using,
>
> . * Selsey .......
|
| |
Date: 25 May 2007 02:51:12
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
On May 24, 9:59 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On May 24, 9:09 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> > wrote:
>
> >>oriel36 wrote:
>
> >>>On May 24, 4:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>Dear group,
>
> >>>>Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
> >>>>near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
> >>>>of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
> >>>>separated by 2370 km apart.
>
> >>>>For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm.... someone please
> >>>>provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
> >>>>about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
> >>>>whatever else I may have missed.
>
> >>>>Clear skies!
>
> >>>>Anthony.
>
> >>>.
>
> >>>The Roemerian insight on the astronomical adjustment know as the
> >>>Equation of Light is based on orbital comparisons just as Kepler's
> >>>refinement of orbital geometries is based on orbital comparisons.
>
> >><snip>
>
> >>>Go back to occultations,personally I think birdwatching photography is
> >>>far more difficult than what you do.At least the birdwatchers put
> >>>thing in correct context.
>
> >>Does this mean you will not be computing an estimated distance of the
> >>moon from earth using this collaborative work so that we can compare
> >>estimates?
>
> >>The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)
>
> >>Anthony.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Astronomers have made use of occultations and specifically using Io
> > and Jupiter -
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > You should enjoy how the faster orbital motion of the Earth accounts
> > for retrogrades of the outer planets and the faster orbital motion of
> > the inner planets overtaking the slower Earth accounts for
> > transits,all bound together in a common heliocentric orbit.
>
> > Until you learn that much,you are adhere to the damaging doctrine of
> > astrology.
>
> Oriel,
>
> I get an estimate of 438,988 km for the distance of the moon from the
> earth when, in fact, it was 395,520 km at the time of photography. In
> other words, there is an error of approximately 10%.
>
> Clear skies!
>
> Anthony.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You openly mock the methods of astronomers,first the Copernican
insight based on the orbital motion of the Earth,then Kepler's use of
orbital comparisons between Earth and Mars to determine a more refined
orbital geometry and the Romerian Equation of Light insight based on
orbital comparisons between Earth and Jupiter.
The motion of the visble stars of our galaxy around a central axis
will change their orientation to the external galaxies,as you
creatures have the visible stars stuck on an astrological framework
there is no possibility of appreciating this great cycle,even in
principle.The appreciation of Milky Way stellar carousel should be a
matter of course along with the normal perception that the foreground
stars would alter their positions to the external galaxies but this is
the dark ages of astronomy and external galaxies are referenced off
the constellations and its celestial sphere geometry.
Successful people do not do this,men have always had clear geometric
judgements based on physical considerations to create some of the
great achievements of mankind but not this,not this astrological/
magnification exercise .You openly mock uygens treatise on how the 24
hour day is created from variations in the length of the daily cycle
determined at noon or rather the tremedous amount of effort by
civilisation after civilisation to refine the methods that now
constitute the clock/calendar system.
What is it with the English,did John Harrison not put you astrologers
to bed when he invented accurate clocks based on Huygens 24 hour/360
degree principles.The same miserable astrological atmosphere still
prevails not only on account of your stupid correlation between
clocks and axial rotation but the greatest Western astronomical
discovery of all - the Copernican heliocentric system.I well
understand Harrison's frustrations when faced with festering hypocrisy
and it is far worse today.,the difference is that I have the actual
images to show exactly what you lot are- astrologers with telescopes.
|
| | |
Date: 25 May 2007 11:18:26
From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
In article <1180086672.759261.291780@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com > wrote:
>You openly mock the methods of astronomers,
No, we openly mock *you*.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 15:02:13
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <1180086672.759261.291780@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You openly mock the methods of astronomers,
>
>
> No, we openly mock *you*.
AWESOME comeback. :-)
Anthony.
>
> -- Richard
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 13:31:59
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
On May 24, 9:09 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On May 24, 4:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Dear group,
>
> >>Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
> >>near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
> >>of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
> >>separated by 2370 km apart.
>
> >>For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm.... someone please
> >>provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
> >>about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
> >>whatever else I may have missed.
>
> >>Clear skies!
>
> >>Anthony.
>
> > .
>
> > The Roemerian insight on the astronomical adjustment know as the
> > Equation of Light is based on orbital comparisons just as Kepler's
> > refinement of orbital geometries is based on orbital comparisons.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Go back to occultations,personally I think birdwatching photography is
> > far more difficult than what you do.At least the birdwatchers put
> > thing in correct context.
>
> Does this mean you will not be computing an estimated distance of the
> moon from earth using this collaborative work so that we can compare
> estimates?
>
> The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)
>
> Anthony.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Astronomers have made use of occultations and specifically using Io
and Jupiter -
http://www.lafterhall.com/io_occultation_020414_jferreira.jpg
Of course these astronomers worked with orbital comparisons between
Earth and Jupiter in determining the insight that the illusion of the
irregular motion of Io can be explained in terms of finite light
speed.As yuo creeps can't even acknowledge orbital comparisons between
the Earth and the other planets as the main argument for
heliocentricity,you are unlikely to appreciate the Keplerian and
Roemerian refinements of the system
You should be delighted that you are getting a free education,I would
show you where Newton was very naughty in bundling the Keplerian
insight on orbital geometries with the Roemerian insight on finite
light distance but I just find it funny nowadays -
"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say,
a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes
of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined." Newton
The nice thing is that modern imaging removes all the garbage of
Newton and exposes the real reasoning behind Copernican reasoning and
even the later refinements.So far you seem to detest astronomy and
what those images are telling you about not only the motions of the
other planets but also the motion of the Earth -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_fd8O1sk3I
You should enjoy how the faster orbital motion of the Earth accounts
for retrogrades of the outer planets and the faster orbital motion of
the inner planets overtaking the slower Earth accounts for
transits,all bound together in a common heliocentric orbit.
Until you learn that much,you are adhere to the damaging doctrine of
astrology.
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2007 23:59:12
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On May 24, 9:09 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> wrote:
>
>>oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>>On May 24, 4:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Dear group,
>>
>>>>Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
>>>>near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
>>>>of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
>>>>separated by 2370 km apart.
>>
>>>>For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm.... someone please
>>>>provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
>>>>about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
>>>>whatever else I may have missed.
>>
>>>>Clear skies!
>>
>>>>Anthony.
>>
>>>.
>>
>>>The Roemerian insight on the astronomical adjustment know as the
>>>Equation of Light is based on orbital comparisons just as Kepler's
>>>refinement of orbital geometries is based on orbital comparisons.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Go back to occultations,personally I think birdwatching photography is
>>>far more difficult than what you do.At least the birdwatchers put
>>>thing in correct context.
>>
>>Does this mean you will not be computing an estimated distance of the
>>moon from earth using this collaborative work so that we can compare
>>estimates?
>>
>>The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)
>>
>>Anthony.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Astronomers have made use of occultations and specifically using Io
> and Jupiter -
<snip >
>
> You should enjoy how the faster orbital motion of the Earth accounts
> for retrogrades of the outer planets and the faster orbital motion of
> the inner planets overtaking the slower Earth accounts for
> transits,all bound together in a common heliocentric orbit.
>
> Until you learn that much,you are adhere to the damaging doctrine of
> astrology.
>
Oriel,
I get an estimate of 438,988 km for the distance of the moon from the
earth when, in fact, it was 395,520 km at the time of photography. In
other words, there is an error of approximately 10%.
Clear skies!
Anthony.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 18:56:27
From: Ernie Wright
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
>>>>> http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm
>>>
>>> The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)
>
> I get an estimate of 438,988 km for the distance of the moon from the
> earth when, in fact, it was 395,520 km at the time of photography. In
> other words, there is an error of approximately 10%.
I got an estimate of 443,368 km. This is assuming an image scale of
about 3.25"/pixel, which I got from the diameter of the Moon,
557 pixels using the ruler tool in Photoshop CS2
1812" according to http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/diskmap.html
The distance between the two images of Regulus is 337 pixels = 1096".
Moon distance = (Selsey Athens distance / 2) / tan(1096"/2)
I think the error comes from assuming that the Selsey-Athens base of the
triangle is at right angles to the Earth-Moon vector. In general it
won't be. If tilting that line up to make it perpendicular shortens it
to about 2100 km, we get a very accurate estimate.
- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 15:07:20
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Ernie Wright wrote:
> Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
>
>>>>>> http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)
>>
>>
>> I get an estimate of 438,988 km for the distance of the moon from the
>> earth when, in fact, it was 395,520 km at the time of photography. In
>> other words, there is an error of approximately 10%.
>
>
> I got an estimate of 443,368 km. This is assuming an image scale of
> about 3.25"/pixel, which I got from the diameter of the Moon,
>
> 557 pixels using the ruler tool in Photoshop CS2
> 1812" according to http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/diskmap.html
>
> The distance between the two images of Regulus is 337 pixels = 1096".
>
> Moon distance = (Selsey Athens distance / 2) / tan(1096"/2)
>
> I think the error comes from assuming that the Selsey-Athens base of the
> triangle is at right angles to the Earth-Moon vector. In general it
> won't be. If tilting that line up to make it perpendicular shortens it
> to about 2100 km, we get a very accurate estimate.
Thanks for the feedback Ernie. My results vary slightly due to SkyMap
Pro which indicates the moon had an apparent diameter of 1839.34" and
the parallax angle which I estimated to be 1113.6". My estimate as to
the distance also ignored the image scale I specified in an earlier post
which for some reason is not correct and I must check as to the reason(s).
Anyway, a nice exercise. Just ask Oriel.
Anthony.
>
> - Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 14:02:14
From: Ernie Wright
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
> [concerning http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm]
>
> Thanks for the feedback Ernie.
Thanks to you and Pete for a fascinating collaborative exercise!
I hope you'll forgive me now for blathering a bit, but it'll lead to a
much better estimate of the Moon's distance derived from your images.
We both got estimates of about 440,000 km, somewhat higher than the true
distance of about 396,000 km, and I mentioned yesterday that most of the
error is because the base of the triangle we're using, the line between
Selsey and Athens, is skewed. The base we *should* be using is a line
that directly faces the Moon.
The situation looks something like this:
. * Selsey
. \
. \ -------- > to the Moon
. \
. * Athens
The base we should be using,
. * Selsey .......
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 00:22:41
From: Khanh-Dang
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Le 25 mai 2007, Ernie Wright a écrit :
>> [concerning http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm]
> The situation looks something like this:
>
> . * Selsey
> . \
> . \ --------> to the Moon
> . \
> . * Athens
>
> The base we should be using,
>
> . * Selsey .......
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 22:09:40
From: Ernie Wright
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Khanh-Dang wrote:
> Le 25 mai 2007, Ernie Wright a écrit :
>>
>> yields a distance estimate of 404,897 km, for an error of only a
>> little more than 2%. That's pretty cool!
>
> Well, actually, the 395,520 km Anthony gave is the geocentric distance
> of the Moon, i.e. the distance from the center of the Earth to the
> center of the Moon. In geocentric coordinates, the Moon is a little
> closer. My ephemeris program tells me the real distance of the Moon from
> Athens is 391,741 km, so that the error is around 3.4 %.
You're right, of course. And as it turns out, my first calculation,
which I did by hand, had an error in it (I switched sine and cosine in
the declination term of the coordinate conversions; I described this the
right way in my post but did it backwards). I've written a program to
run the calculation more rigorously and it finds a distance about 3%
*less* than the topocentric distance.
> That's still cool, however ;-)
Doing this calculation gives one a renewed appreciation for what
Hipparchus was able to accomplish before trigonometry was invented.
- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 23:51:01
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Ernie Wright wrote:
> Doing this calculation gives one a renewed appreciation for what
> Hipparchus was able to accomplish before trigonometry was invented.
Modern trigonometry, yes, but they had similar and basically sufficient
mathematical tools.
Your point stands, though: Very impressive. Then again, of course, he
was Hipparchus, not some doof.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 May 2007 23:34:05
From: Ernie Wright
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> Ernie Wright wrote:
>
>> Doing this calculation gives one a renewed appreciation for what
>> Hipparchus was able to accomplish before trigonometry was invented.
>
> Modern trigonometry, yes, but they had similar and basically sufficient
> mathematical tools.
Indeed. There's no mathematically important difference between using
sines and using chords.
> Your point stands, though: Very impressive. Then again, of course, he
> was Hipparchus, not some doof.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say. He didn't need *any* of
the tools I perhaps doofily relied on. And unlike us, he couldn't peek
at the answers in the back of the book.
As Brian already knows, almost none of Hipparchus's original writing has
survived. We have to rely mainly on the bits and pieces conveyed to us
by Ptolemy in the Almagest. Ptolemy's description of lunar parallax
calculations is in book V part 17. The diagram (Fig. 5.13 in Toomer's
translation) shows the situation pretty clearly.
- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 16:11:49
From: Ernie Wright
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Re http://www.lpod.org/?m=20070526
I had a chance this weekend to do a few 3D renders showing the geometry
of the Earth-Moon system at the time of the images. They include a
stereo pair of the views from Athens and Selsey.
http://home.comcast.net/~erniew/astro/moonpar.html
I'll probably add some details to the text at the end of the page in the
next couple of days.
- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 22:27:58
From: Pete Lawrence
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:11:49 -0400, Ernie Wright <erniew@comcast.net >
wrote:
>Re http://www.lpod.org/?m=20070526
>
>I had a chance this weekend to do a few 3D renders showing the geometry
>of the Earth-Moon system at the time of the images. They include a
>stereo pair of the views from Athens and Selsey.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~erniew/astro/moonpar.html
>
>I'll probably add some details to the text at the end of the page in the
>next couple of days.
>
>- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Ernie,
That's a fantastic write up - thanks for doing that.
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Jun 2007 00:35:18
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Pete Lawrence wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:11:49 -0400, Ernie Wright <erniew@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Re http://www.lpod.org/?m=20070526
>>
>>I had a chance this weekend to do a few 3D renders showing the geometry
>>of the Earth-Moon system at the time of the images. They include a
>>stereo pair of the views from Athens and Selsey.
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~erniew/astro/moonpar.html
>>
>>I'll probably add some details to the text at the end of the page in the
>>next couple of days.
>>
>>- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
>
>
> Ernie,
>
> That's a fantastic write up - thanks for doing that.
>
Ditto from me as well!
Anthony.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 20:58:23
From: Ernie Wright
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
> Pete Lawrence wrote:
>> Ernie Wright wrote:
>>> http://home.comcast.net/~erniew/astro/moonpar.html
>>
>> Ernie,
>> That's a fantastic write up - thanks for doing that.
>
> Ditto from me as well!
I'm very glad you guys like it. Thanks again to both of you for the
inspiration.
- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 14:27:40
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Ernie Wright wrote:
> Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
>
>> [concerning http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm]
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback Ernie.
>
>
> Thanks to you and Pete for a fascinating collaborative exercise!
Ernie,
We thank you as well. I just hope you have generous bandwidth for your
website: http://www.lpod.org/?m=20070526
Anthony.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 21:38:32
From: Ernie Wright
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
> Ernie,
>
> We thank you as well. I just hope you have generous bandwidth for your
> website: http://www.lpod.org/?m=20070526
Wow. Well, I guess I'll find out. :)
- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 14:23:47
From: Shawn
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
> Dear group,
>
> Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
> near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
> of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
> separated by 2370 km apart.
>
> For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please see
> http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm .... someone please
> provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
> about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
> whatever else I may have missed.
>
> Clear skies!
Cool! Thanks to both of you for sharing.
Shawn
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 12:35:13
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
On May 24, 4:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> Dear group,
>
> Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
> near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
> of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
> separated by 2370 km apart.
>
> For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm.... someone please
> provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
> about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
> whatever else I may have missed.
>
> Clear skies!
>
> Anthony.
.
The Roemerian insight on the astronomical adjustment know as the
Equation of Light is based on orbital comparisons just as Kepler's
refinement of orbital geometries is based on orbital comparisons.
http://books.google.com/books?id=N6T-N2p7Qf8C&pg=PA227&dq=roemer+jupiter+earth
There is nothing remotely difficult in determining that the illusion
of the irregular motion of Io is due to finite light speed and this is
how the great astronomers understood it .Because the Flamsteed/Newton
maneuver of introducing the astrological framework into heliocentric
reasoning,Bradley finished heliocentricity off by invoking the
background stars and paralax to account for the Roiemerian insight.
The irregular motion of Io still can be seen today and the insight of
Roemer can still be appreciated without appealing to stellar
parallax but rather to orbital comparisons between a moving Earth and
slower orbitally moving Jupiter -
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/heather.hobden1/JupiterIo.jpg
http://www.msgc.org/images/ioshadow_msgc.gif
A real astronomer would be taking note of the change in the
orientation of Io's shadow due to the change in orbital positions
between Earth and Jupiter as both planets orbit the central star.
Go back to occultations,personally I think birdwatching photography is
far more difficult than what you do.At least the birdwatchers put
thing in correct context.
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2007 23:09:52
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On May 24, 4:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> wrote:
>
>>Dear group,
>>
>>Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
>>near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
>>of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
>>separated by 2370 km apart.
>>
>>For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm.... someone please
>>provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
>>about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
>>whatever else I may have missed.
>>
>>Clear skies!
>>
>>Anthony.
>
>
> .
>
> The Roemerian insight on the astronomical adjustment know as the
> Equation of Light is based on orbital comparisons just as Kepler's
> refinement of orbital geometries is based on orbital comparisons.
<snip >
>
> Go back to occultations,personally I think birdwatching photography is
> far more difficult than what you do.At least the birdwatchers put
> thing in correct context.
>
Does this mean you will not be computing an estimated distance of the
moon from earth using this collaborative work so that we can compare
estimates?
The image scale of the resampled image is around 2.51"/pixel. ;-)
Anthony.
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 12:06:28
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
On May 24, 4:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> Dear group,
>
> Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
> near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
> of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
> separated by 2370 km apart.
>
> For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm.... someone please
> provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
> about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
> whatever else I may have missed.
>
> Clear skies!
>
> Anthony.
The antidote for you is Huygens -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
A guy who does not know the basic correlation between the natural noon
cycle and the 24 hour day is no astronomer,the fact that you are
enamored with the 17th century analemma hoax and a non existent figure
8 assures you a position right up there with the creationists.
There is nothing remotely close to that scandal where men cannot even
acknowledge how clocks keep in sync with the axial cycle as a 24 hour/
360 degree correlation or rather attach the rotation of the Earth
directly to a celestial sphere and believe a location rotates to noon
in 24 hours in order to justify the return of a star in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
That 'sidereal time' explanation is as though an enormous joke is
being played on humanity and there is nothing funny about it.What in
God's name are people doing ?,what insanity grips people when it has
been known from antiquity that no two cycles are the same -
" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12.
Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5
hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon
to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd
in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days,
a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c.
(the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that
revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to
which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute
shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must
needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun,
or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is
regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation, and here you have a
Table, that shows" Huygens
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
With everything laid out before all of you and you still can't admire
how the 24 hour day is created out of the natural cycle and how it is
applied to clocks and the axial cycle.
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 16:16:58
From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
In article <f34cha$ehj$1@mouse.otenet.gr >,
Anthony Ayiomamitis <anthony@perseus.no2spam.gr > wrote:
>For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please see
>http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm
Very nice.
I think the inverse picture would also be interesting, with one image
of Regulus and two of the moon. Would the difference in fullness of
the moon be visible?
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2007 19:32:50
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <f34cha$ehj$1@mouse.otenet.gr>,
> Anthony Ayiomamitis <anthony@perseus.no2spam.gr> wrote:
>
>
>>For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please see
>>http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm
>
>
> Very nice.
Glad you like it.
>
> I think the inverse picture would also be interesting, with one image
> of Regulus and two of the moon. Would the difference in fullness of
> the moon be visible?
I thought about this as well ... it can be done and it would probably be
best to have the current moon as is and simply add the second (higher)
moon using Pete's Regulus as reference and with a thin artificial
separator between the two moons.
Anthony.
>
> -- Richard
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 09:08:40
From: Ben
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
On May 24, 10:54 am, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> Dear group,
>
> Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
> near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
> of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
> separated by 2370 km apart.
>
> For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm.... someone please
> provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
> about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
> whatever else I may have missed.
>
> Clear skies!
>
> Anthony.
Cool, gentlemen. Exponentially cool.
Praises to the both of you.
Thorazine ( iv drip ) for the crazy guy.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2007 09:51:04
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
Ben wrote:
> On May 24, 10:54 am, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> wrote:
>> Dear group,
>>
>> Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
>> near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
>> of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
>> separated by 2370 km apart.
>>
>> For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm.... someone please
>> provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
>> about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
>> whatever else I may have missed.
>>
>> Clear skies!
>>
>> Anthony.
>
> Cool, gentlemen. Exponentially cool.
> Praises to the both of you.
>
Hear hear! Very cool.
Greg
--
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html
Dethink to survive - Mclusky
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 17:04:16
From: Jim
Subject: Re: Parallax by Day
|
In article <f34cha$ehj$1@mouse.otenet.gr >, Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
> Dear group,
>
> Pete Lawrence and I pooled our work from yesterday surrounding the
> near-occultation of Regulus by the moon to produce an interesting view
> of how Regulus appeared relatively to the moon for the two of us
> separated by 2370 km apart.
>
> For an interesting comparison of this apparent view, please see
> http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Lunar-Parallax.htm .... someone please
> provide oriel with his medication before he starts mumbling het again
> about astrologers, axial rotation, apparent frames of reference and
> whatever else I may have missed.
I'm not sure he actually _understands_ apparent frames of reference. If
he did then he might actually shut up for a while.
Very nice work both of you, by the way :-)
Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
My lucky star is probably Eta Carinae.
|
|
