| |
Main
Date: 21 May 2007 09:19:49
From: Pete Lawrence
Subject: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
cast by Venus...
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
|
|
| |
Date: 30 May 2007 09:45:57
From:
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
In uk.sci.astronomy Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nospam@pbl33.co.uk > wrote:
> Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
> cast by Venus...
> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
Excellent.
How wonderful to see a Clanger participating in scientific research!
--
Andy Clews
University of Sussex
*** Remove DENTURES if replying by email ***
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 17:15:18
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On 21 May, 09:19, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk >
wrote:
> Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
> cast by Venus...
>
> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>
> --
> Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Good work Pete.
Andrea T.
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2007 12:24:21
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 22, 12:54 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On May 21, 7:48 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On May 21, 11:28 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > True and apparent motions are just common astronomical terms,the
> > movement Pete's shadow is not due to the apparent motion of Venus but
> > the true motion of the Earth,specifically axial rotation.
>
> > I am sure Pete and Anthony will be doing cartwheels of joy looking at
> > your brilliant defence but they have at least the comfort of knowing
> > that they are no better or wrorse than your level of understanding.I
> > welcome your attempt as it always is an occasion to present the
> > difference between apparent motions and true motions.
>
> The only cartwheels I do is when I nail successfully a target (or
> concept) so that my to-do list has one less entry outstanding.
>
I am delighted that you are now an openly unapologetic astrologer and
safely conversant with the constellational framework as part of your
'targeting' and photographic endeavor.
I give you that project to do using ameridian line and a clock to
determine that the analemma is a 17 th century hoax for those who
know no better,sort of a giant astronomical Piltdown man if you like.
> Now, to add insult to injury, I will be starting a project next month
> that will have YOU doing cartwheels. Seriously. ;-)
>
If there were astronomers here they would have questions about why the
set values in the Equation of Time tables supplied by Huygens
differs from the modern tables -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/exo/sundials/equation_of_time.html
It is nearly impossible to believe ,at least after reading Huygen's
treatise,that successful people would believe that clocks keep pace
with axial rotation in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds through a 360
degree cycle .
There is only one correlation between the axial cycle,clocks and
terrestrial longitudes and the value is exactly 24 hours/360
degrees.Up to a point unfamiliarity with the principles is acceptable
but then the situation shades off into the dominance of astrologers
and astrology due to inaction to address the single greatest known
error ever to be inflicted on humanity.
There is no satisfaction putting physicists and astrophotographers in
their place,it is the absence of genuine astronomers that makes it
disappointing and especially in this era where images and texts are
availible to appreciate the magnificent thinking of real astronomers.
What type of telescope did Copernicus and Kepler have ?,that's
right,you do not need one to be an astronomer.
>
>
> > The apparent motions of the planets,for both Ptolemaic and
> > heliocentric astronomers ,were both the same -
>
> <snip>
>
> Anthony.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2007 05:40:47
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 5:54 pm, "Paul Buglass"
<paulremovethis.buglass2...@btremoveinternet.com > wrote:
> Hi Gerald,
>
> Hope you are well?
>
As a person who has known the oceans of this world,I can feel that
sense of loss of the burning of the Cutty Sark yet nobody ever feels
the loss of an entire astronomical tradition but I assure you I
do.Regardless,I am left to deal with the matter technically and must
set aside the insults directed towards me notwithstanding that all I
am doing is presenting a heritage that exists through the texts of the
original authors such as Copernicus and Huygens allied with modern
imaging.In this respect,I am the most modern of astronomers in my
attempt to use as many images as possible to carry my points or rather
carry the accurate astronomical working principles.
I am not made of stone,the delicate sense of an astronomer is as keen
as any person alive and this makes it all the more painful to contend
with minds that do not grasp just how fragile and fleeting existence
is before the scale and majesty of the great astronomical cycles,in
which case an astronomer is not just a commentator of the cycles but
also a participator in these cycles.In short,astronomy is not just an
optical experience but one which develops the intutive intelligence to
appreciate how the cycles make existence possible hence astronomy is
as much an exercise of the day rather than an observational hobby at
night.
I do not apologise for my poor presentation and grammer ,I am
delighted that I will never be proposed as a human model of clarity
however it is not intentional but rather a consequence of trying to
condense so much work for a hostile audience who can simply walk away
when it suits.
How am I ?, sore from the absence of astronomers to talk to and who
can do a better job than I can in restoring an astronomical heritage
from being solely an exercise in magnification
> Do you work for BT Ireland in Dublin by any chance?
>
No
> It's just I've seen your posts here over the last few years, (very
> interesting by the way, but I can't claim to understand what it is you're
> trying to enlighten us about), and I saw there was someone wth your name
> working for BT in Dublin, at least there was a year or so ago.
>
Last year I worked in Northern Norway where you can see first hand why
there needs to be an enormous astronomical modification to the reasons
for global climate and hemispherical weather patterns otherwise known
as the seasons.The idea of using axial tilt to explain the seasons or
variations in inclination is incredible considering that it leads to
the idea the the Sun's apparent motion expressed as solar inclination
is responsible for the seasons.To kill two birds with the one
stone,you have Anthony here and his 17th century analemma hoax trying
to explain the same thing -
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.htm
These people are entirely serious in keeping the 'circle of
illumination' straight and varying the axial orientation of the Earth
or rather giving the Earth an annual 23 1/2 degree axial
precession.In an era where in is crucial to determine the exact cause
of the seasons and consequently the correct astronomical background
for global climate,everything is expressed in terms of the apparent
motion and position of the Sun against the horizon as Pete here tries
to explain the shadow cast by Venus by framing it in astrological
terms.
> I was just wondering if it was you? If it was you, maybe you can try and
> explain your points face to face over a pint on my next trip to Dublin?
>
> Cheers
>
Astronomy is about developing your intutive intelligence and Pascal
is correct is determining the near impossibility of explaining things
to people who need step by step explanations -
" But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do
not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and
plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well
inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of
intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They
are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the
greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of
themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous
that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them,
and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for
the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in
mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same
way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We
must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of
reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that
mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."
Pascal
> --
>
> Paul B, York, UK.
>
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179764915.184083.306180@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Who would like to try to get oriel to understand the meaning of the
> >> > > word "apparent" in Pete's paragraph?
>
> >> > > Austin
>
> >> > Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
> >> > Jupiter or any of the other planets.
>
> >> So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?
>
> >> Austin
>
> > The orbital motions of Mercury,Venus ,Mars and the other planets are
> > seen to move against the stellar background over long periods.They are
> > resolved by an orbitally moving Earth between Venus and Mars,transits
> > take care of the inner planets overtaking the slower moving Earth and
> > apparent retrogrades are resolved by a faster orbitally moving Earth -
>
> >http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg
>
> >http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> > The apparent motions of the planets are always taken in context of
> > orbital comparisons ,at least by real astronomers,and not axial
> > rotation applied to the position of planets.
>
> > "If there was ever any doubt it was caused by sky glow, the motion of
> > the shadow caused by the apparent motion of Venus in the sky has
> > eliminated this" Pete
>
> > To link the motion of a shadow to the apparent motion of a planet may
> > get you a pat on the back from astrologers but it is about as far
> > away from the heights of Western astronomy as it is possible to
> > get,not just Copernican heliocentricity but Ptolemaic astronomy as
> > well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2007 05:21:04
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 22, 10:02 am, "Les Hemmings"
<les.frontalcla...@lobesvirgin.net > wrote:
> AustinMN wrote:
> > On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud <s...@below.net> wrote:
> > I think his real problem is that he doesn't have a telescope, and that
> > makes him feel inferior. But he may just have Asperger's Syndrome.
> > I've asked repeatedly, but he refuses to answer that.
>
> > I really should just leave him alone, but he's such an easy target.
>
> > Austin
>
> Even us Aspies know what "apparent" means.... send him here
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/apparent
>
> I think usage number 2 in the thesaurus section is the one we're on about.
> "Appearing as such but not necessarily so" and not number 1 "Readily seen,
> perceived, or understood"
>
> This may be where he is getting confused...
>
> Used before a noun, apparent means "seeming": For all his apparent wealth,
> Pat had no money to pay the rent. Used after a form of the verb be, however,
> apparent can mean either "seeming" (as in His virtues are only apparent) or
> "obvious" (as in The effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees
> the parched fields).
>
> "In spite of his apparant dexterity with the english language, Oriel's
> imperviousness to the opposing argument became more and more apparant!"
>
> L
>
> --
> Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.
>
> "These people believe the souls of fried space aliens inhabit their
> bodies and hold soup cans to get rid of them. I should care what they
> think?"...Valerie Emmanuel
>
> Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA
You are just astrological children playing around with
magnification.You have never come across a real astronomer before and
that is fine.The intellectual display by your two astrophotographic
stars may impress the hell out of you but they lack any background
context to their images or rather they paste everything on an
astrological framework and express things in astrological terms.
Astronomically there is only one acceptable meaning for apparent
planetary motions and it certainly is never referenced off axial
rotation as Pete here.Even if I dislike using the texts of Kepler for
demonstrating this point I get to highlight just how dumb
astrophotographers and magnification astrologers actually are -
"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets
[viasplanetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is
especially the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy;
to discover their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas]
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler
If Pete here had remarked that he was demonstrating the axial rotation
of his location through the Earth's orbital shadow then he would at
least make something worthwhile out of the time lapse footage but he
is a confirmed astrologer with the same cretinous sub-geocentric
astrological outlook that would make the Ptolemaic astronomers blush.
If you have issues with apparent motion and true planetary motion then
I suggest you take issue with the Keplerian definition which
accurately reflects the working principles of astronomy and especially
the contemplative astronomical tradition I come from.The contemporary
term for contemplative is 'intutive intelligence' otherwise known as
wisdom.
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2007 05:02:51
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 22, 10:02 am, "Les Hemmings"
<les.frontalcla...@lobesvirgin.net > wrote:
> AustinMN wrote:
> > On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud <s...@below.net> wrote:
> > I think his real problem is that he doesn't have a telescope, and that
> > makes him feel inferior. But he may just have Asperger's Syndrome.
> > I've asked repeatedly, but he refuses to answer that.
>
> > I really should just leave him alone, but he's such an easy target.
>
> > Austin
>
> Even us Aspies know what "apparent" means.... send him here
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/apparent
>
> I think usage number 2 in the thesaurus section is the one we're on about.
> "Appearing as such but not necessarily so" and not number 1 "Readily seen,
> perceived, or understood"
>
> This may be where he is getting confused...
>
> Used before a noun, apparent means "seeming": For all his apparent wealth,
> Pat had no money to pay the rent. Used after a form of the verb be, however,
> apparent can mean either "seeming" (as in His virtues are only apparent) or
> "obvious" (as in The effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees
> the parched fields).
>
> "In spite of his apparant dexterity with the english language, Oriel's
> imperviousness to the opposing argument became more and more apparant!"
>
> L
>
> --
> Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.
>
> "These people believe the souls of fried space aliens inhabit their
> bodies and hold soup cans to get rid of them. I should care what they
> think?"...Valerie Emmanuel
>
> Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA
You are just astrological children playing around with
magnification.You have never come across a real astronomer before and
that is fine.The intellectual display by your two astrophotographic
stars may impress the hell out of you but they lack any background
context to their images or rather they paste everything on an
astrological framework and express things in astrological terms.
Astronomically there is only one acceptable meaning for apparent
planetary motions and it certainly is never referenced off axial
rotation as Pete here.Even if I dislike using the texts of Kepler for
demonstrating this point I get to highlight just how dumb
astrophotographers and magnification astrologers actually are -
"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets
[viasplanetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is
especially the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy;
to discover their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas]
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler
If Pete here had remarked that he was demonstrating the axial rotation
of his location through the Earth's orbital shadow then he would at
least make something worthwhile out of the time lapse footage but he
is a confirmed astrologer with the same cretinous sub-geocentric
astrological outlook that would make the Ptolemaic astronomers blush.
If you have issues with apparent motion and true planetary motion then
I suggest you take issue with the Keplerian definition which
accurately reflects the working principles of astronomy and especially
the contemplative astronomical tradition I come from.The contemporary
term for contemplative is 'intutive intelligence' otherwise known as
wisdom.
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2007 04:56:10
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 22, 10:02 am, "Les Hemmings"
<les.frontalcla...@lobesvirgin.net > wrote:
> AustinMN wrote:
> > On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud <s...@below.net> wrote:
> > I think his real problem is that he doesn't have a telescope, and that
> > makes him feel inferior. But he may just have Asperger's Syndrome.
> > I've asked repeatedly, but he refuses to answer that.
>
> > I really should just leave him alone, but he's such an easy target.
>
> > Austin
>
> Even us Aspies know what "apparent" means.... send him here
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/apparent
>
> I think usage number 2 in the thesaurus section is the one we're on about.
> "Appearing as such but not necessarily so" and not number 1 "Readily seen,
> perceived, or understood"
>
> This may be where he is getting confused...
>
> Used before a noun, apparent means "seeming": For all his apparent wealth,
> Pat had no money to pay the rent. Used after a form of the verb be, however,
> apparent can mean either "seeming" (as in His virtues are only apparent) or
> "obvious" (as in The effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees
> the parched fields).
>
> "In spite of his apparant dexterity with the english language, Oriel's
> imperviousness to the opposing argument became more and more apparant!"
>
> L
>
> --
> Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.
>
> "These people believe the souls of fried space aliens inhabit their
> bodies and hold soup cans to get rid of them. I should care what they
> think?"...Valerie Emmanuel
>
> Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA
You are just astrological children playing around with
magnification.You have never come across a real astronomer before and
that is fine.The intellectual display by your two astrophotographic
stars may impress the hell out of you but they lack any background
context to their images or rather they paste everything on an
astrological framework and express things in astrological terms.
Astronomically there is only one acceptable meaning for apparent
planetary motions and it certainly is never referenced off axial
rotation as Pete here.Even if I dislike using the texts of Kepler for
demonstrating this point I get to highlight just how dumb
astrophotographers and magnification astrologers actually are -
"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets
[viasplanetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is
especially the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy;
to discover their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas]
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler
If Pete here had remarked that he was demonstrating the axial rotation
of his location through the Earth's orbital shadow then he would at
least make something worthwhile out of the time lapse footage but he
is a confirmed astrologer with the same cretinous sub-geocentric
astrological outlook that would make the Ptolemaic astronomers blush.
If you have issues with apparent motion and true planetary motion then
I suggest you take issue with the Keplerian definition which
accurately reflects the working principles of astronomy and especially
the contemplative astronomical tradition I come from.The contemporary
term for contemplative ,as Kepler meant it,is 'intutive intelligence'
and when your astrophotographic stars try to make stupid correlations
in front of a real astronomer the result is that they disappear when
they are told about the physical considerations involved in their
notions.
Take away your telescopes and you are outright astrologers.
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2007 04:39:59
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 22, 10:02 am, "Les Hemmings"
<les.frontalcla...@lobesvirgin.net > wrote:
> AustinMN wrote:
> > On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud <s...@below.net> wrote:
> > I think his real problem is that he doesn't have a telescope, and that
> > makes him feel inferior. But he may just have Asperger's Syndrome.
> > I've asked repeatedly, but he refuses to answer that.
>
> > I really should just leave him alone, but he's such an easy target.
>
> > Austin
>
> Even us Aspies know what "apparent" means.... send him here
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/apparent
>
> I think usage number 2 in the thesaurus section is the one we're on about.
> "Appearing as such but not necessarily so" and not number 1 "Readily seen,
> perceived, or understood"
>
> This may be where he is getting confused...
>
> Used before a noun, apparent means "seeming": For all his apparent wealth,
> Pat had no money to pay the rent. Used after a form of the verb be, however,
> apparent can mean either "seeming" (as in His virtues are only apparent) or
> "obvious" (as in The effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees
> the parched fields).
>
> "In spite of his apparant dexterity with the english language, Oriel's
> imperviousness to the opposing argument became more and more apparant!"
>
> L
>
> --
> Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.
>
> "These people believe the souls of fried space aliens inhabit their
> bodies and hold soup cans to get rid of them. I should care what they
> think?"...Valerie Emmanuel
>
> Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA
You are just astrological children playing around with
magnification.You have never come across a real astronomer before and
that is fine.The intellectual display by your two astrophotographic
stars may impress the hell out of you but they lack any background
context to their images or rather they paste everything on an
astrological framework and express things in astrological terms.
Astronomically there is only one acceptable meaning for apparent
planetary motions and it certainly is never referenced off axial
rotation as Pete here.Even if I dislike using the texts of Kepler for
demonstrating this point I get to highlight just how dumb
astrophotographers and magnification astrologers actually are -
"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets
[viasplanetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is
especially the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy;
to discover their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas]
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler
If Pete here had remarked that he was demonstrating the axial rotation
of his location through the Earth's orbital shadow then he would at
least make something worthwhile out of the time lapse footage but he
is a confirmed astrologer with the same cretinous sub-geocentric
astrological outlook that would make the Ptolemaic astronomers blush.
If you have issues with apparent motion and true planetary motion then
I suggest you take issue with the Keplerian definition which
accurately reflects the working principles of astronomy and especially
the contemplative astronomical tradition I come from.The contemporary
term for contemplative ,as Kepler meant it,is 'intutive intelligence'
and when your astrophotographic stars try to make stupid correlations
in front of a real astronomer the result is that they disappear when
they are told about the physical considerations involved in their
notions.
Take away your telescopes and you are outright astrologers.
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2007 04:02:53
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 7:48 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 21, 11:28 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Who would like to try to get oriel to understand the meaning of the
> > > > > word "apparent" in Pete's paragraph?
>
> > > > > Austin
>
> > > > Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
> > > > Jupiter or any of the other planets.
>
> > > So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?
>
> > > Austin
>
> > The orbital motions of Mercury,Venus ,Mars and the other planets are
> > seen to move against the stellar background over long periods.
>
> So they do appear to move ("apparent motion")? "Seen to" and
> "apparent" are synonymous terms, oriel. Someone with your command of
> language ought to know that.
>
> Make up your mind. Either they do appear to move, or they don't.
>
> Austin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
True and apparent motions are just common astronomical terms,the
movement Pete's shadow is not due to the apparent motion of Venus but
the true motion of the Earth,specifically axial rotation.
I am sure Pete and Anthony will be doing cartwheels of joy looking at
your brilliant defence but they have at least the comfort of knowing
that they are no better or wrorse than your level of understanding.I
welcome your attempt as it always is an occasion to present the
difference between apparent motions and true motions.
The apparent motions of the planets,for both Ptolemaic and
heliocentric astronomers ,were both the same -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg
The heliocentric astronomers however used orbital comparisons between
the Earth's orbital motion and the other planets to conclude a common
heliocentric orbital motion -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
There is no such thing as 'apparent' motion of Venus against an
axially rotating Earth unless you really want to highlight that Pete
here is an unapologetic astrologer.I am sure he has recognised that by
now but due to your spirited defence I get to really shopw the guy
just how stupid he is.
|
| | |
Date: 22 May 2007 14:54:35
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On May 21, 7:48 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 21, 11:28 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
<snip >
>
> True and apparent motions are just common astronomical terms,the
> movement Pete's shadow is not due to the apparent motion of Venus but
> the true motion of the Earth,specifically axial rotation.
>
> I am sure Pete and Anthony will be doing cartwheels of joy looking at
> your brilliant defence but they have at least the comfort of knowing
> that they are no better or wrorse than your level of understanding.I
> welcome your attempt as it always is an occasion to present the
> difference between apparent motions and true motions.
The only cartwheels I do is when I nail successfully a target (or
concept) so that my to-do list has one less entry outstanding.
Now, to add insult to injury, I will be starting a project next month
that will have YOU doing cartwheels. Seriously. ;-)
>
> The apparent motions of the planets,for both Ptolemaic and
> heliocentric astronomers ,were both the same -
<snip >
Anthony.
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 11:52:13
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud <s...@below.net > wrote:
> oriel3:
>
> > > Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
> > > Jupiter or any of the other planets.
>
> AustinMN:
>
> > So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?
>
> This is great news. Expensive equatorial mounts obsolete. Ditto guide
> cameras.
>
> Davoud
You *almost* got me to baptize my screen with diet Coke.
I think his real problem is that he doesn't have a telescope, and that
makes him feel inferior. But he may just have Asperger's Syndrome.
I've asked repeatedly, but he refuses to answer that.
I really should just leave him alone, but he's such an easy target.
Austin
|
| | |
Date: 22 May 2007 10:02:52
From: Les Hemmings
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
AustinMN wrote:
> On May 21, 11:42 am, Davoud <s...@below.net> wrote:
> I think his real problem is that he doesn't have a telescope, and that
> makes him feel inferior. But he may just have Asperger's Syndrome.
> I've asked repeatedly, but he refuses to answer that.
>
> I really should just leave him alone, but he's such an easy target.
>
> Austin
Even us Aspies know what "apparent" means.... send him here
http://www.answers.com/topic/apparent
I think usage number 2 in the thesaurus section is the one we're on about.
"Appearing as such but not necessarily so" and not number 1 "Readily seen,
perceived, or understood"
This may be where he is getting confused...
Used before a noun, apparent means "seeming": For all his apparent wealth,
Pat had no money to pay the rent. Used after a form of the verb be, however,
apparent can mean either "seeming" (as in His virtues are only apparent) or
"obvious" (as in The effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees
the parched fields).
"In spite of his apparant dexterity with the english language, Oriel's
imperviousness to the opposing argument became more and more apparant!"
L
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.
"These people believe the souls of fried space aliens inhabit their
bodies and hold soup cans to get rid of them. I should care what they
think?"...Valerie Emmanuel
Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 11:48:13
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 11:28 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Who would like to try to get oriel to understand the meaning of the
> > > > word "apparent" in Pete's paragraph?
>
> > > > Austin
>
> > > Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
> > > Jupiter or any of the other planets.
>
> > So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?
>
> > Austin
>
> The orbital motions of Mercury,Venus ,Mars and the other planets are
> seen to move against the stellar background over long periods.
So they do appear to move ("apparent motion")? "Seen to" and
"apparent" are synonymous terms, oriel. Someone with your command of
language ought to know that.
Make up your mind. Either they do appear to move, or they don't.
Austin
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 10:53:23
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 5:42 pm, Davoud <s...@below.net > wrote:
> oriel3:
>
> > > Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
> > > Jupiter or any of the other planets.
>
> AustinMN:
>
> > So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?
>
> This is great news. Expensive equatorial mounts obsolete. Ditto guide
> cameras.
>
> Davoud
>
> --
> usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com
The introduction of astrological thinking in heliocentric principles
occured through Flamsteed and especially the adoption of the celestial
sphere/constellational framework for the convenience of observing -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension
You,Pete and Austin here are ,unknown to yourselves,are just
astrologers with telescopes and all working off that constellational
sphere you project into the celestial arena.There is no continuity
between pre-Copernican and heliocentric astronomies in the way you
consider apparent or actual motions ,an unfortunate example being Pete
here.
Those expensive Equatorial mounts are a symptom of an underlying
problem that began with a horrible and destructive correlation made
in the late 17th century -
"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed 1676
That was the first time somebody tried to justify the axial and
orbital motions of the Earth using a clock allied to celestial
sphere geometry,it gives you your observational convenience and
equatorial mounts but destroys everything else .
You want your apparent motion of planets pasted to celestial sphere
geometry and the sidereal time system to boot and you should be
delighted that it exists as the dominant system today,nobody to object
and all wrapped up in the name of 'astronomy'.It is even celebrated as
being a sign of intelligence but unfortunately underneath are the
minds of astrologers and this is reflected in this thread and what it
proposes.
Everybody has intutive intelligence but the catch is that only those
with intutive intelligence will properly understand how it differs
from minds that do not grasp things instantly or rather those who try
to build things by adding one fact on top of another.Newton actually
thought that Flamsteed correlation between axial rotation and
constellational geometry was a fact but Flamsteed's foundations are
actually bogus,an idiosyncratic attempt to to determine terrestrial
longitudes using an astrological framework.Newton lacked the intutive
intelligence to grasp the physical considerations involved in making
correlations between clocks,terrestrial longitudes and the daily cycle
hence we now inherit this contemporary situation where most are now
unapologetic astrologers with a bent for magnification.
Perhaps giving Pascal the last word on this matter will provide a
common ground that does not exist at present,again,the intutive will
understand it but those who are mathematical/astrological will not -
" But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do
not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and
plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well
inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of
intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They
are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the
greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of
themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous
that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them,
and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for
the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in
mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same
way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We
must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of
reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that
mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."
Pascal
.
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 09:28:35
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Who would like to try to get oriel to understand the meaning of the
> > > word "apparent" in Pete's paragraph?
>
> > > Austin
>
> > Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
> > Jupiter or any of the other planets.
>
> So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?
>
> Austin
The orbital motions of Mercury,Venus ,Mars and the other planets are
seen to move against the stellar background over long periods.They are
resolved by an orbitally moving Earth between Venus and Mars,transits
take care of the inner planets overtaking the slower moving Earth and
apparent retrogrades are resolved by a faster orbitally moving Earth -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
The apparent motions of the planets are always taken in context of
orbital comparisons ,at least by real astronomers,and not axial
rotation applied to the position of planets.
"If there was ever any doubt it was caused by sky glow, the motion of
the shadow caused by the apparent motion of Venus in the sky has
eliminated this" Pete
To link the motion of a shadow to the apparent motion of a planet may
get you a pat on the back from astrologers but it is about as far
away from the heights of Western astronomy as it is possible to
get,not just Copernican heliocentricity but Ptolemaic astronomy as
well.
|
| | |
Date: 21 May 2007 17:54:29
From: Paul Buglass
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
Hi Gerald,
Hope you are well?
Do you work for BT Ireland in Dublin by any chance?
It's just I've seen your posts here over the last few years, (very
interesting by the way, but I can't claim to understand what it is you're
trying to enlighten us about), and I saw there was someone wth your name
working for BT in Dublin, at least there was a year or so ago.
I was just wondering if it was you? If it was you, maybe you can try and
explain your points face to face over a pint on my next trip to Dublin?
Cheers
--
Paul B, York, UK.
"oriel36" <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179764915.184083.306180@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 21, 4:41 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Who would like to try to get oriel to understand the meaning of the
>> > > word "apparent" in Pete's paragraph?
>>
>> > > Austin
>>
>> > Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
>> > Jupiter or any of the other planets.
>>
>> So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?
>>
>> Austin
>
> The orbital motions of Mercury,Venus ,Mars and the other planets are
> seen to move against the stellar background over long periods.They are
> resolved by an orbitally moving Earth between Venus and Mars,transits
> take care of the inner planets overtaking the slower moving Earth and
> apparent retrogrades are resolved by a faster orbitally moving Earth -
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> The apparent motions of the planets are always taken in context of
> orbital comparisons ,at least by real astronomers,and not axial
> rotation applied to the position of planets.
>
> "If there was ever any doubt it was caused by sky glow, the motion of
> the shadow caused by the apparent motion of Venus in the sky has
> eliminated this" Pete
>
> To link the motion of a shadow to the apparent motion of a planet may
> get you a pat on the back from astrologers but it is about as far
> away from the heights of Western astronomy as it is possible to
> get,not just Copernican heliocentricity but Ptolemaic astronomy as
> well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 09:16:24
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 4:34 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On May 21, 1:42 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Tim Duke wrote:
>
> >>>For once in my life, I was away on business during a new moon (usually when
> >>>i go away, it's a full moon - never seem to time it right).
>
> >>>Unfortunately I was sent out to the carribean island of Bonaire near the
> >>>coast of Venezuela. By some fate, the potential client that I was visisting
> >>>was into astronomy and took my up to the top of the island where it was
> >>>absolutely pitch black!
>
> >>>First time I had seen the southern cross and Omega Centauri! Venus was very
> >>>high in the sky and I was actually able to cast a shadow of my hand on to a
> >>>sheet of paper. I was so chuffed!!!
>
> >>Tim/Pete,
>
> >>There must be a way to nail this task so that there is no doubt about
> >>the success of such a project. Time for my thinking cap to go on ....
>
> >>Anthony.
>
> > Before you go chasing Pete's shadows I suggest you look to your own
> > endeavor .
>
> <snip>
>
> Actually it is Venus' shadows I would like to chase. I have been
> thinking about this exercise and challenge the past few hours and I am
> very interested in Pete's project!
>
> Anthony.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you not interested in getting rid of that late 17th century
analemma hoax which has a pedigree going back to Flamsteed ?
Do you not enjoy that there is no variable inclination involved in the
Equation of Time correction in the major human achievement in creating
the 24 hour day ?.
" When you first set your Watch by the Sun, you are to subduct from
the time observed by the Sun, the Aequation adjoyned to that day of
the Month in the Table, and to set the Watches to the remaining hours,
minuts and seconds, that is, the Watches are to be set so much slower,
than the time of the Sun, as (in the Table) is the Aequation of that
day; so that the Aequation of the Day, added to the time of the Clock,
is the true time by the Sun. And when after some days, you desire to
know by the Watch the time by the Sun, you are to add to the time,
shew'd by the Watch, the Aequation of that day; and the Aggregate
shall be the time by the Sun, if the Watch hath been perfectly well
adjusted after he measure of the Mean days;"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
Is there something among you lot that has a desperate need to destroy
the correlation between clocks and terrestrial longitudes even when
you have an entire explanation in front of you.?.If you want a
challenge then create a meridian line as Huygens urges and then check
to see if adding minutes and seconds to clock noon will coincide with
the alignment of the shadow on the floor -
"Draw a Meridian line upon a floor (the manner of doing which is
sufficiently known; and note, that the utmost exactness herein is not
necessary:) and then hang two plummets, each by a small thred or wire,
directly over the said Meridian, at the distance of some 2. feet or
more one from the other, as the smalness of the thred will admit. When
the middle of the Sun you are then immediately to set the Watch, not
precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the Aequation
of the day by the Table."
That is the only shadow that should concern you for the noon
alignment contains some of the great known human principles and
especially the one where clocks keep in sync with the daily rotational
cycle as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation.
It will be the first real astronomical achievement of the 21st century
to restore the original principles based on the Equation of Time
correction.
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 09:13:44
From: Ben
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 3:19 am, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk >
wrote:
> Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
> cast by Venus...
>
> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>
> --
> Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk
A fascinating peice of work, Pete.
Thanks for the info and the post.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 08:41:16
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 9:48 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Who would like to try to get oriel to understand the meaning of the
> > word "apparent" in Pete's paragraph?
>
> > Austin
>
> Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
> Jupiter or any of the other planets.
So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?
Austin
|
| | |
Date: 21 May 2007 16:42:46
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
oriel3:
> > Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
> > Jupiter or any of the other planets.
AustinMN:
> So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?
This is great news. Expensive equatorial mounts obsolete. Ditto guide
cameras.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com
|
| | | |
Date: 21 May 2007 20:03:18
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
Davoud wrote:
> oriel3:
>
>>>Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
>>>Jupiter or any of the other planets.
>
>
> AustinMN:
>
>>So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?
>
>
> This is great news. Expensive equatorial mounts obsolete.
Damn ... do you know how much my AP1200GTO cost me?!
> Ditto guide
> cameras.
Hehehehe, does this mean perfect "guiding" by default. We get to save on
the batteries to!
Anthony.
>
> Davoud
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 May 2007 23:10:11
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
oriel3:
> >>>Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
> >>>Jupiter or any of the other planets.
AustinMN:
> >
> >>So they don't appear to move? They just stay stationary in the sky?
> >
Davoud wrote:
> > This is great news. Expensive equatorial mounts obsolete.
Anthony Ayiomamitis:
> Damn ... do you know how much my AP1200GTO cost me?!
Yes, I have some idea. That's why I don't have one :--(
But none of that matters now. Please send me your AP1200GTO immediately
so that I may arrange to, ahem, re-allocate it in an environmentally
friendly way.
Davoud
P.S. Unlike you, I use a killfile. It's not bursting with names, but
oriel3 has a place of honor beside Dr. Min and Rich A.
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 08:26:22
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 1:42 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> Tim Duke wrote:
> > For once in my life, I was away on business during a new moon (usually when
> > i go away, it's a full moon - never seem to time it right).
>
> > Unfortunately I was sent out to the carribean island of Bonaire near the
> > coast of Venezuela. By some fate, the potential client that I was visisting
> > was into astronomy and took my up to the top of the island where it was
> > absolutely pitch black!
>
> > First time I had seen the southern cross and Omega Centauri! Venus was very
> > high in the sky and I was actually able to cast a shadow of my hand on to a
> > sheet of paper. I was so chuffed!!!
>
> Tim/Pete,
>
> There must be a way to nail this task so that there is no doubt about
> the success of such a project. Time for my thinking cap to go on ....
>
> Anthony.
>
Before you go chasing Pete's shadows I suggest you look to your own
endeavor .The meridian line registers natural noon day after day
and then you apply the Equation of Time to equalise to 24 hour clock
noon.No figure 8,no tilting Earth,just plain natural noon and 24 hour
clock noon.
The heliocentric trick was to invent clocks which could maintain the
24 hour day and then after applying the noon correction,determine
position on the planet by using a correlation which keeps clocks in
sync with the axial cycle as 4 minutes for each degree of geographical
seperation making 24 hours/360 degrees.You have to love how they
tranfered the 'average' 24 hour day to a 'constant' axial cycle by way
of the Equation of Time.
" Draw a Meridian line upon a floor (the manner of doing which is
sufficiently known; and note, that the utmost exactness herein is not
necessary:) and then hang two plummets, each by a small thred or wire,
directly over the said Meridian, at the distance of some 2. feet or
more one from the other, as the smalness of the thred will admit. When
the middle of the Sun (the Eye being placed so, as to bring both the
threds into one line) appears to be in the same line exactly... you
are then immediately to set the Watch, not precisely to the hour of
12. but by so much less, as is the Aequation of the day by the Table.
"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
All these big institutions who now think differently than the
pragmatic reasoning of the timekeeeping astronomers -
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
Want to know why your magnification exercisae is dying ?.It is because
people may be discovering the wonderful story of Longitude and how a
bunch of celestial sphere astrologers tried to destroy a man who
invented accurate clocks based on the principles supplied by Huygens
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison
>
>
>
>
> > Tim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 21 May 2007 18:34:45
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On May 21, 1:42 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> wrote:
>
>>Tim Duke wrote:
>>
>>>For once in my life, I was away on business during a new moon (usually when
>>>i go away, it's a full moon - never seem to time it right).
>>
>>>Unfortunately I was sent out to the carribean island of Bonaire near the
>>>coast of Venezuela. By some fate, the potential client that I was visisting
>>>was into astronomy and took my up to the top of the island where it was
>>>absolutely pitch black!
>>
>>>First time I had seen the southern cross and Omega Centauri! Venus was very
>>>high in the sky and I was actually able to cast a shadow of my hand on to a
>>>sheet of paper. I was so chuffed!!!
>>
>>Tim/Pete,
>>
>>There must be a way to nail this task so that there is no doubt about
>>the success of such a project. Time for my thinking cap to go on ....
>>
>>Anthony.
>>
>
>
> Before you go chasing Pete's shadows I suggest you look to your own
> endeavor .
<snip >
Actually it is Venus' shadows I would like to chase. I have been
thinking about this exercise and challenge the past few hours and I am
very interested in Pete's project!
Anthony.
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 08:06:50
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 1:58 pm, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk >
wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 15:42:41 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
>
>
>
>
>
> <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr> wrote:
> >Tim Duke wrote:
>
> >> For once in my life, I was away on business during a new moon (usually when
> >> i go away, it's a full moon - never seem to time it right).
>
> >> Unfortunately I was sent out to the carribean island of Bonaire near the
> >> coast of Venezuela. By some fate, the potential client that I was visisting
> >> was into astronomy and took my up to the top of the island where it was
> >> absolutely pitch black!
>
> >> First time I had seen the southern cross and Omega Centauri! Venus was very
> >> high in the sky and I was actually able to cast a shadow of my hand on to a
> >> sheet of paper. I was so chuffed!!!
>
> >Tim/Pete,
>
> >There must be a way to nail this task so that there is no doubt about
> >the success of such a project. Time for my thinking cap to go on ....
>
> That's why I animated the shadow. If there was ever any doubt it was
> caused by sky glow, the motion of the shadow caused by the apparent
> motion of Venus in the sky has eliminated this.
When the Western heliocentric astronomers talked of apparent planetary
motions they refered to the long term plotted positions that exclude
axial rotation.
"With regard to the apparent motions of the Sun and Moon, it is
perhaps possible to deny what is said about the motion of the Earth,
although I do not see how the explanation of precession is to be
transferred to the sphere of the stars. But if anyone desires to look
either to the order and harmony of the system of the spheres, or to
ease and elegance and a complete explanation of the causes of the
phenomena, by no other hypotheses will he demonstrate more neatly and
correctly the apparent motions of the remaining planets. For all these
phenomena appear to be linked most nobly together, as by a golden
chain; and each of the planets, by its position and order and very
inequality of its motion, bears witness that the Earth moves. . . . "
Rheticus
http://www.graviton.demon.co.uk/5planetsNr3520.jpg
The long term orbital motions of the planets and the speed at which
the Earth overtakes them and the inner ones overtake the Earth along
with 'transits' affirms that the Earth's orbital motion is between
Venus and Mars.The conjunctions above give no background context to
the Earth's motions or those of the other planets,it is only when the
Earth's orbital motion is considered ,then the system straightens out.
With your 'apparent' motions of Venus,you highlight just how deficient
contemporaries are in matters of meshing the motions of the Earth with
climatology insofar as the seasons and global climate rely heavily on
the motion of the Earth's orbital shadow over the course of an annual
orbit.
There is room for one
> further project but I'll leave that for update 3 ;-)
>
> --
> Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 07:48:58
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 2:27 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 21, 4:43 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 9:19 am, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
> > > cast by Venus...
>
> > >http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>
> > > --
> > > Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk
>
> > Dear,oh dear oh dear.Let us see -
>
> > "Then a simple experiment dawned on me that would prove once and for
> > all that the shadow was indeed caused by Earth's brilliant twin. By
> > taking a number of sequential shots on the same night, as long as the
> > camera and shadow casting object remained stationary, the apparent
> > movement of Venus in the sky should cause the shadow to move on the
> > wall being used as a screen."
>
> > Who would liike to inform Pete here that shadow movements are due to
> > the motion of the Earth,specifically axial rotation.
>
> Who would like to try to get oriel to understand the meaning of the
> word "apparent" in Pete's paragraph?
>
> Austin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Venus does noit have an apparent motion,neither does Mercury,Mars
Jupiter or any of the other planets.The original heliocentric
astronomers did not have telescopes to use the motion of the inner
planets as they overtake the slower Earth as a way of affirming
heliocentric motion for the Earth and the other planets ,they used the
observed behavior of the outer planets against the stellar background
and by giving the Earth an orbital motion.,it allowed them to infer a
common heliocentric motion.
Pete here is correlating the motion of a shadow directly to the motion
of Venus when it is actually axial rotation he is looking at.With the
acknowledgement that the orbital motion of the Earth accounts for the
behavior of the planets nobody ever thinks about apparent motions of
the 'planets' except astrologers or what amounts to the same
thing,correlating the Earth axial rotation with the position of a
planet.
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 07:26:06
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 1:09 pm, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk >
wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 14:52:39 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
>
>
>
>
>
> <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr> wrote:
> >oriel36 wrote:
> >> On May 21, 9:19 am, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
> >>>cast by Venus...
>
> >>>http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>
> >>>--
> >>>Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk
>
> >> Dear,oh dear oh dear.Let us see -
>
> ><snip>
>
> >Sorry, Pete, but now it's your turn .... thanks to you, I have a
> >(temporary) reprieve from oriel.
>
> >When you have had enough, just remind him about my analemma work and
> >.... things will be back to "normal" for me. :-)
>
> I don't normally see his cuckoo posts at all because he goes into a
> radiation/shadow differential orbital sub-rotational framework I call
> my kill file. There he's at home because there's lots of other rubbish
> he can pick up tips from. You have to admire someone with so little in
> their life that they can spend so much time writing drivel designed to
> include keywords to bait their troll prey. Sorry, did I say admire? I
> mean't pity of course ;-)
>
> Does she (because we don't know if Gertrude is a man) still refer to
> the analema as the astrological analema? Gosh, that's an impressive
> bait isn't it? He's a real master ;-)
> --
> Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wonder what goes through your small minds when you encounter the
work of a real astronomer -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
The creation of the 24 hour day by real astronomers by using natural
noon and the Equation of Time tables is such an astronomical jewel
that only the most ignorant people on the planet would believe that
each noon cycle is exactly 24 hours,in order to justify why a star
returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
The same people who used orbital comparisons between the Earth and the
other planets to extract so much information have had their work
temporarily destroyed by idiots who draw a correlation between axial
rotation of the Earth and the motion of the planet Venus in terms of
radiation received.How screwed up is that !!!!.
A few years ago you would probably have received your sought after
adulation but in the presence of a real astronomer,all you can do is
highlight that you and Anthony here are just astrophotographers with
either geocentric or astrological perspectives.
Like to continue with the motion of shadows and the Earth's motions or
do you really wish to imagine that Venus has an apparent motion ?.
Here is the faster Venus overtaking the slower orbitally moving
Earth with the central Sun as a backdrop in case you have severe
difficulties with Copernican reasoning -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Venustransit_2004-06-08_07-44.jpg
There is no apparent motion of Venus unless you are a geocentric freak
like Anthony here ,the motions of Venus are seen directly from an
orbitally moving Earth hence your correlation between the motion of a
shadow and Venus is hardly the reasoning of an astronomer.
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 06:56:17
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 12:52 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On May 21, 9:19 am, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
> >>cast by Venus...
>
> >>http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>
> >>--
> >>Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk
>
> > Dear,oh dear oh dear.Let us see -
>
> <snip>
>
> Sorry, Pete, but now it's your turn .... thanks to you, I have a
> (temporary) reprieve from oriel.
>
> When you have had enough, just remind him about my analemma work and
> .... things will be back to "normal" for me. :-)
>
> Anthony.
Have you figured out yet that you are analemma photgraphing is just a
late 17th century hoax,a silly attempt to determine the Earths motions
using a clock.
It must be something else to have the no variable tilt at the Equator
and a huge variation in tilt at the poles in order to achieve your
analemma.
Pete,he has no astronomical pedigree but your analemmatic images
do,albeit and astyrological one.
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 06:27:27
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 4:43 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 21, 9:19 am, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
> > cast by Venus...
>
> >http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>
> > --
> > Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk
>
> Dear,oh dear oh dear.Let us see -
>
> "Then a simple experiment dawned on me that would prove once and for
> all that the shadow was indeed caused by Earth's brilliant twin. By
> taking a number of sequential shots on the same night, as long as the
> camera and shadow casting object remained stationary, the apparent
> movement of Venus in the sky should cause the shadow to move on the
> wall being used as a screen."
>
> Who would liike to inform Pete here that shadow movements are due to
> the motion of the Earth,specifically axial rotation.
Who would like to try to get oriel to understand the meaning of the
word "apparent" in Pete's paragraph?
Austin
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 13:34:35
From: Tim Duke
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
For once in my life, I was away on business during a new moon (usually when
i go away, it's a full moon - never seem to time it right).
Unfortunately I was sent out to the carribean island of Bonaire near the
coast of Venezuela. By some fate, the potential client that I was visisting
was into astronomy and took my up to the top of the island where it was
absolutely pitch black!
First time I had seen the southern cross and Omega Centauri! Venus was very
high in the sky and I was actually able to cast a shadow of my hand on to a
sheet of paper. I was so chuffed!!!
Tim
|
| | |
Date: 21 May 2007 15:42:41
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
Tim Duke wrote:
> For once in my life, I was away on business during a new moon (usually when
> i go away, it's a full moon - never seem to time it right).
>
> Unfortunately I was sent out to the carribean island of Bonaire near the
> coast of Venezuela. By some fate, the potential client that I was visisting
> was into astronomy and took my up to the top of the island where it was
> absolutely pitch black!
>
> First time I had seen the southern cross and Omega Centauri! Venus was very
> high in the sky and I was actually able to cast a shadow of my hand on to a
> sheet of paper. I was so chuffed!!!
Tim/Pete,
There must be a way to nail this task so that there is no doubt about
the success of such a project. Time for my thinking cap to go on ....
Anthony.
>
> Tim
>
|
| | | |
Date: 21 May 2007 13:58:42
From: Pete Lawrence
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On Mon, 21 May 2007 15:42:41 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
<anthony@perseus.no2spam.gr > wrote:
>Tim Duke wrote:
>
>> For once in my life, I was away on business during a new moon (usually when
>> i go away, it's a full moon - never seem to time it right).
>>
>> Unfortunately I was sent out to the carribean island of Bonaire near the
>> coast of Venezuela. By some fate, the potential client that I was visisting
>> was into astronomy and took my up to the top of the island where it was
>> absolutely pitch black!
>>
>> First time I had seen the southern cross and Omega Centauri! Venus was very
>> high in the sky and I was actually able to cast a shadow of my hand on to a
>> sheet of paper. I was so chuffed!!!
>
>Tim/Pete,
>
>There must be a way to nail this task so that there is no doubt about
>the success of such a project. Time for my thinking cap to go on ....
That's why I animated the shadow. If there was ever any doubt it was
caused by sky glow, the motion of the shadow caused by the apparent
motion of Venus in the sky has eliminated this. There is room for one
further project but I'll leave that for update 3 ;-)
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 10:55:01
From: a l l y
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
"Pete Lawrence" <pete.lawrence.nospam@pbl33.co.uk > wrote in message
news:pcl25396t12bclijm8f287tu7p33p3o6i1@4ax.com...
> Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
> cast by Venus...
>
> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>
Wow. :-)) I love it. Gives me a lovely warm tingle all over.
ally
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 02:47:51
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 10:20 am, norman <nor...@littletank.org > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 09:19:49 +0100, Pete Lawrence wrote:
> > Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
> > cast by Venus...
>
> >http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>
> That is brilliant, thanks very much.
>
> Norman
Here you go,if you want a real challenge then try and match the Solar
radiation/orbital shadow boundary with the geographical axis of the
Earth without giving the Earth a variable axial tilt.
http://www.astronomy.org/programs/seasons/pictures/07reasons-for-seasons-flashlight.gif
Considering that this is the enormous conmnection between astronomy
and climatology and a huge modification of the original reasons for
the reasons I suggest you take your time trying to figure out what
moves and what does not.
Pete here is from a group who believes that the angle of inclination
of received radiation is responsible for the seasons hence the
astrological analemmas.
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 02:43:11
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On May 21, 9:19 am, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk >
wrote:
> Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
> cast by Venus...
>
> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>
> --
> Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Dear,oh dear oh dear.Let us see -
"Then a simple experiment dawned on me that would prove once and for
all that the shadow was indeed caused by Earth's brilliant twin. By
taking a number of sequential shots on the same night, as long as the
camera and shadow casting object remained stationary, the apparent
movement of Venus in the sky should cause the shadow to move on the
wall being used as a screen."
Who would liike to inform Pete here that shadow movements are due to
the motion of the Earth,specifically axial rotation.
Correlating a radiation/shadow differential with the apparent motion
of Venus is quite a strecth.Considering that I have spent the best
part of two years trying to get participants interested in the actual
change in the Earth's solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary to
explain global climate and the seasons rather than the pseudo-dynamic
of variable axial tilt,your geocentric wishful thinking typifies why
astrological tendencies are so damaging.In short,you cannot think
straighrt.
If any of you spent some time trying to figure out how the motion of
the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary splits the polar axis at
the Equinoxes I would not have to come here and deal with nonsense
such as analemmas and pseudo-dynamics of variable axial tilt.
|
| | |
Date: 21 May 2007 14:52:39
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On May 21, 9:19 am, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
>>cast by Venus...
>>
>>http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>>
>>--
>>Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk
>
>
> Dear,oh dear oh dear.Let us see -
>
<snip >
Sorry, Pete, but now it's your turn .... thanks to you, I have a
(temporary) reprieve from oriel.
When you have had enough, just remind him about my analemma work and
.... things will be back to "normal" for me. :-)
Anthony.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 May 2007 13:09:17
From: Pete Lawrence
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
On Mon, 21 May 2007 14:52:39 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
<anthony@perseus.no2spam.gr > wrote:
>oriel36 wrote:
>> On May 21, 9:19 am, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
>>>cast by Venus...
>>>
>>>http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>>>
>>>--
>>>Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk
>>
>>
>> Dear,oh dear oh dear.Let us see -
>>
>
><snip>
>
>Sorry, Pete, but now it's your turn .... thanks to you, I have a
>(temporary) reprieve from oriel.
>
>When you have had enough, just remind him about my analemma work and
>.... things will be back to "normal" for me. :-)
I don't normally see his cuckoo posts at all because he goes into a
radiation/shadow differential orbital sub-rotational framework I call
my kill file. There he's at home because there's lots of other rubbish
he can pick up tips from. You have to admire someone with so little in
their life that they can spend so much time writing drivel designed to
include keywords to bait their troll prey. Sorry, did I say admire? I
mean't pity of course ;-)
Does she (because we don't know if Gertrude is a man) still refer to
the analema as the astrological analema? Gosh, that's an impressive
bait isn't it? He's a real master ;-)
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 May 2007 15:40:02
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Venusian shadow - part 2
|
Pete Lawrence wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 14:52:39 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
> <anthony@perseus.no2spam.gr> wrote:
>
>
>>oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>>On May 21, 9:19 am, Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence.nos...@pbl33.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here's a update for my November 2005 project to capture the shadow
>>>>cast by Venus...
>>>>
>>>>http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/shadow-of-venus_2.html
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Petehttp://www.digitalsky.org.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear,oh dear oh dear.Let us see -
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Sorry, Pete, but now it's your turn .... thanks to you, I have a
>>(temporary) reprieve from oriel.
>>
>>When you have had enough, just remind him about my analemma work and
>>.... things will be back to "normal" for me. :-)
>
>
> I don't normally see his cuckoo posts at all because he goes into a
> radiation/shadow differential orbital sub-rotational framework I call
> my kill file. There he's at home because there's lots of other rubbish
> he can pick up tips from. You have to admire someone with so little in
> their life that they can spend so much time writing drivel designed to
> include keywords to bait their troll prey. Sorry, did I say admire? I
> mean't pity of course ;-)
>
> Does she (because we don't know if Gertrude is a man) still refer to
> the analema as the astrological analema? Gosh, that's an impressive
> bait isn't it? He's a real master ;-)
Well said (and fully quoted on purpose). I confess to not using
killfiles but I suspect it may just be time to do something similar.
I remember 10 yrs ago s.a.a. was really a great place ... it has now
become the playground for lots of nutcases with too much time on their
hands intent on being a pain in the butt and all while hiding behind a
keyboard.
Anthony.
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 10:08:34
From: Kev
Subject: Re: CaK vs H-alpha PST images
|
"Pete Lawrence" <pete.lawrence.nospam@pbl33.co.uk > wrote in message
news:q6l2535glbbpss6g8jfeurq1r9m0ndqmlb@4ax.com...
> Hi all,
Most informative Pete!
kev
|
|
