Starmapping software

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 24 Sep 2006 06:25:08
From: Len
Subject: Starmapping software

Hi all,

My wife and I are planning an ocean passage with our sailboat next year
and amongst a lot of other things we are learning celestial navigation.
For recognition-practice but also for fun we are looking for
starmapping software. I have downloaded a few but mostly I was a bit
disappointed with the results/images.

What I would like is a program that uses lat/lon and UTC-time to
present a more realistic, high resolution picture including the
horizon.
It doesn't have to be freeware but then again the price would have to
be reasonable.

I hope someone can point me in the right direction???

Thanks a lot in advance,

Len.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 09:27:25
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Hi:

As several folks have said, Cartes du Ciel will do the job. However, I
believe given your wants you'd be happier with Starry Night:

<http://store.starrynightstore.com/cpack2006.html >

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >

Len wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My wife and I are planning an ocean passage with our sailboat next year
> and amongst a lot of other things we are learning celestial navigation.
> For recognition-practice but also for fun we are looking for
> starmapping software. I have downloaded a few but mostly I was a bit
> disappointed with the results/images.
>
> What I would like is a program that uses lat/lon and UTC-time to
> present a more realistic, high resolution picture including the
> horizon.
> It doesn't have to be freeware but then again the price would have to
> be reasonable.
>
> I hope someone can point me in the right direction???
>
> Thanks a lot in advance,
>
> Len.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 09:25:27
From:
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Date: 24 Sep 2006 07:49:45
From: Len
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

AM wrote:

> Personally, I would go for Stellarium, seeing as how
> you will be at sea. I would also get a sextant, and learn
> how how use it. Besides being fun, it will help you learn
> a lot of useful info.
> That and a good set of bino's, and you should be in
> heaven :)

Thanks AM,
I'll definitely will look into Stellarium too.

Cheers, Len.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 07:47:04
From: Len
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Hm.
Forgot to start the animation and I was looking at the day-view
(blush).
Ok, Cartes deu Ciel is very nice indeed. I'll start practicing with
this one. I hope I'll get this feeling of certainty in identifing the
ones I need.

Thanks so far.
I'll be back...

Len.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 17:42:43
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"Len" <lendenbesten@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159109224.664482.190150@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hm.
> Forgot to start the animation and I was looking at the day-view
> (blush).
> Ok, Cartes deu Ciel is very nice indeed. I'll start practicing with
> this one. I hope I'll get this feeling of certainty in identifing the
> ones I need.
>

Hi Len, been there too!

As well as a software solution you may also take a look at a Planisphere -
these have the advantage that they don't need to be charged and you can hold
them over your head to make sure you've got your orientation correct. You
can also sit and fiddle with one more easily than a laptop and they show
naturally how midnight in July has the same aspect as 8pm in September for
example.
They are produced to be used at particular altitudes (35 - 45 N, 45-55 N
etc), so if you have a long North / South trip planned you may need to buy a
couple of them.

I've never known one need re-booting either.

I think I agree with Rod that a basic version of Starry night would be a
good starting point - it's a little more 'natural' looking than CdC. -
maybe you'll find it on a PC magazine cover disc.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 07:40:22
From: Len
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:

> Tell us which ones you've tried and discounted and we'll find out if there
> are better alternatives.
>
> Obvious ones to suggest are
> one of the "Starry Night" family - I use Enthusiast occasionally
> Cartes de Ciel - Freeware, my usual #1 choice if wanting to see what's up at
> present.
> Redshift - I have a very old copy of Version 2 It's got a few nice additions
> like an encyclopedia of Astronony and built in lessons.

Hi OG, thanks for your reply.
I tried a few some months ago and (maybe coz of mr alzheimer kicking in
early) I have forgotten about prog-names. After reading your reply I
have been looking at Cartes de Ciel. When I search for f.e. Arcturus,
just Arcturus is shown next to a few other bodies like sun and moon.
This enables me to look in the right direction but no more than that.
What I need is a more realistic image, so I can be sure I identify
Arcturus, or Vega, Pollux, Capella, Alpheratz, Deneb, Dubhe with 100%
certainty.

I have been looking at TheSkySix. A quite impressive image is shown on
http://www.bisque.com/help/v6/TheSky_Version_6.htm

And on http://www.shopatsky.com/ they mention a sale: the "serious
astronomer- version" for USD 99,95.
What I am asking myself is should I invest my bucks in this or is there
another serious tool that fullfills my needs in a comparable quality
and can I put (a part of) these 99 bucks in an even better sextant?

Thanks,
Len.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 10:38:08
From: AM
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Len wrote:

> What I would like is a program that uses lat/lon and UTC-time to
> present a more realistic, high resolution picture including the
> horizon.
> It doesn't have to be freeware but then again the price would have to
> be reasonable.
>
> I hope someone can point me in the right direction???
>

Hi.

Cartes Du Ceil would be a good start. Forget the fact that
it is free, it gives a very nice sky view, and is very full
featured. Windows, and Linux versions.

http://www.ap-i.net/skychart/index.php

This is the beta version, and the prettiest. The original
and standard of excellence is here;

http://www.stargazing.net/astropc/

You might also want to look at Stellarium;
It has the nicest graphics of any astronomy sky
chart program bar none. Available for any OS.

http://www.stellarium.org/

Personally, I would go for Stellarium, seeing as how
you will be at sea. I would also get a sextant, and learn
how how use it. Besides being fun, it will help you learn
a lot of useful info.
That and a good set of bino's, and you should be in
heaven :)

--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3

Date: 24 Sep 2006 14:55:33
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"Len" <lendenbesten@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159104308.447352.236080@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> My wife and I are planning an ocean passage with our sailboat next year
> and amongst a lot of other things we are learning celestial navigation.
> For recognition-practice but also for fun we are looking for
> starmapping software. I have downloaded a few but mostly I was a bit
> disappointed with the results/images.
>

Tell us which ones you've tried and discounted and we'll find out if there
are better alternatives.

Obvious ones to suggest are
one of the "Starry Night" family - I use Enthusiast occasionally
Cartes de Ciel - Freeware, my usual #1 choice if wanting to see what's up at
present.
Redshift - I have a very old copy of Version 2 It's got a few nice additions
like an encyclopedia of Astronony and built in lessons.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 18:31:25
From: Bob May
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

If you're trying to locate major stars with these charts, it is better to
actually find the stars and memorize where basically in the sky that they
are at home and then use them to actually do your navigation with them with
a sextant. The stars move through the sky during the night so you also need
to really have an accurate clock on hand to be able to tell longitude.
Trying to estimate the location of any star will be an exercise in
frustrationwithout some accurate angle measuring device.
Navigation at sea is a very interesting subject but also a bit intimidating
to get into. For a test of your navigational skills, sitting in the hot tub
and calculating where you are is always a bit of fun.

--
Yeppie, Bush is such an idiot that He usually outwits
everybody else. How dumb!

Date: 24 Sep 2006 19:50:21
From: Joe S.
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"Len" <lendenbesten@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159104308.447352.236080@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> My wife and I are planning an ocean passage with our sailboat next year
> and amongst a lot of other things we are learning celestial navigation.
> For recognition-practice but also for fun we are looking for
> starmapping software. I have downloaded a few but mostly I was a bit
> disappointed with the results/images.
>
> What I would like is a program that uses lat/lon and UTC-time to
> present a more realistic, high resolution picture including the
> horizon.
> It doesn't have to be freeware but then again the price would have to
> be reasonable.
>
> I hope someone can point me in the right direction???
>
> Thanks a lot in advance,
>
> Len.
>

Starry Night Pro.

Also, get one or more planispheres. Note that a planishphere is good for a
range of latitudes -- so, if you are traveling considerably north or south
you need to get more than one.

I like David Levy's "Guide to the Stars" -- here's a page with several:
http://skymaps.com/store/cat04.html

Date: 24 Sep 2006 15:39:52
From: brucegooglegroups
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Sjouke Burry wrote:
> Len wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > My wife and I are planning an ocean passage with our sailboat next year
> > and amongst a lot of other things we are learning celestial navigation.
> > For recognition-practice but also for fun we are looking for
> > starmapping software. I have downloaded a few but mostly I was a bit
> > disappointed with the results/images.
> >
> > What I would like is a program that uses lat/lon and UTC-time to
> > present a more realistic, high resolution picture including the
> > horizon.
> > It doesn't have to be freeware but then again the price would have to
> > be reasonable.
> >
> > I hope someone can point me in the right direction???
> >
> > Thanks a lot in advance,
> >
> > Len.
> >
> Try stellarium, almost realtime look, including
> daylight simulation.

I read these posts today, and downloaded Stellarium. It is excellent
and easy to use. Changing the latitude and longitude is a bit
cumbersome, and it doesn't recognize names such as "Big Dipper" or
"Pleiades". I have been using Starry Night Orion Edition, but I will
switch to Stellarium for a simpler view.

Also- can the view be printed?
Bruce

Date: 25 Sep 2006 03:58:12
From: Sjouke Burry
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

brucegooglegroups wrote:
> Sjouke Burry wrote:
>
>>Len wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>My wife and I are planning an ocean passage with our sailboat next year
>>>and amongst a lot of other things we are learning celestial navigation.
>>>For recognition-practice but also for fun we are looking for
>>>starmapping software. I have downloaded a few but mostly I was a bit
>>>disappointed with the results/images.
>>>
>>>What I would like is a program that uses lat/lon and UTC-time to
>>>present a more realistic, high resolution picture including the
>>>horizon.
>>>It doesn't have to be freeware but then again the price would have to
>>>be reasonable.
>>>
>>>I hope someone can point me in the right direction???
>>>
>>>Thanks a lot in advance,
>>>
>>>Len.
>>>
>>
>>Try stellarium, almost realtime look, including
>>daylight simulation.
>
>
> I read these posts today, and downloaded Stellarium. It is excellent
> and easy to use. Changing the latitude and longitude is a bit
> cumbersome, and it doesn't recognize names such as "Big Dipper" or
> "Pleiades". I have been using Starry Night Orion Edition, but I will
> switch to Stellarium for a simpler view.
>
> Also- can the view be printed?
> Bruce
>
Sorry , cant test,bcause I dont have a printer.
However, if you press PRINTSCREEN inside a window,
you can paste it in PAINT,and print it.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 14:23:45
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

HI:

I'm curious, Oriole. Are you saying the sidereal day _is_ 23 hours and
56 minutes long...or that it _isn't_? What do those voices inside your
head say?

And as long as I've got your ear...which pony do they favor in the 3rd
race at Santa Anita?

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >

oriole36 wrote:
>
> A star will return in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec based on 3 years of 365
> days and 1 year of 366 days (leap year) otherwise that Ra/Dec system
> will not work.
>
> The moral of the constellational story is - never,ever try to justify
> celestial sphere geometry using the axial and orbital motions of the
> Earth,you can try but you are going to have one helluva job trying to
> fit the annual orbital motion of the Earth into a calendrical system.
>
> The second complimentary moral of the story is - for goodness sake
> recognise the celestial sphere/constellations as a convenience but do
> not ever try to fit it to terrestial longitudes,axial rotation or any
> other physical explanation.

Date: 08 Oct 2006 12:09:52
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159874729.869417.286280@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>
> >> Where does the clock rate come from? You can't get a precise clock rate
> >> from the Sun can you? The best you can get is a variable clock that needs
> >> correction through the Equation of Time.
> >>
> >
> > The standard pace of the hand movement of a clock was originally
> > devised by astronomers based on the daily cycle as the Sun returns to
> > noon .The heliocentric astronomers knew from observence that no two
> > daily cycles are the same so they equalised the variations by observing
> > naturl noon and applying corrections of minutes and seconds to create
> > the 24 hour day and more importantly to facilitate the seamless
> > transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day.
>
> OK, so you agree that a calendrical correction is applied to the solar time.
>

I had specifically requested that you leave the matter to those who can
appreciate how the transfer of the Equation of Time principles from its
pre-Copernican purpose of governing the creation of the 24 hour day and
its seamless transition to the next 24 hour hour day was adapted to its
heliocentric application to the principle of independent and constant
axial rotation.

If nobody can go so far as to acknowledge that it never was neccessary
to introduce celestial sphere geometry to arrive at the correlation of
axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour then there is absolutely nothing
I can do about it.It remains a horrendous error to justify the return
of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds using the axial and orbital
motions of the Earth but again,there is nothing I can do about that
either.

I can show you where the rubbish began with Maskelyne who opposed
Harrison and his chronometer which keeps the standard pace of a clock
in sync with axial rotation but my business is to promote the positive
side of astronomy and timekeeping and not strictly correcting clowns
like Maskelyne,Newton and Flamsteed .

Put the following title in the search field of the Royal Journals -

Some Remarks upon the Equation of Time, and the True Manner of
Computing

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(rglh3y55x100x5nyim4p0k45)/app/home/main.asp?referrer=default

This silly man is doing what you all do,make up whatever explanation
you think will fly without even bothering to make the effort to grasp
the exquisite and easy to understand two step process with one foot in
pre-Copernican astronomy and the other in heliocentric astronomy.

> > It is how the Equation of Time principles which govern the creation of
> > the 24 hour day get transfered to the heliocentric adaption for axial
> > rotation which is breathtaking in its genius and its intricacies.Having
> > delivered the insight by which the orbital motion of the Earth
> > resolved the observed motions of the planets, by dividing the Earth's
> > motions into seperate axial and orbital entities,these great
> > astronomers could then adapt the Equation of Time principles to axial
> > rotation in isolation.
>
> Which great astronomers are these ? Please let's be specific.
> And do you understand that the Equation of Time has nothing to do with the
> axial alignment of the Earth?

I have done what I could to promote astronomy in a contemporary
atmosphere which only recognises magnification as being the ultimate
ends of astronomy.Nobody is doing anything without the correct point of
departure for astronomy ,that being recognising the independent axial
rotation of the Earth and the cycle to which human existence is
closely tied to.

Drop justifying the return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds
using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth or what amounts to the
same thing,at least try to comprehend how the correlation between
time,axial rotation and the motions of the Earth actually emerged.This
means jettisoning the fables of people like Maskelyne who did not have
the intuitive intelligence to grasp that no celestial sphere or
'primium mobile' was neccessary to create one of the greatest human
achievements ever.

Date: 09 Oct 2006 00:34:08
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160334592.734597.306600@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159874729.869417.286280@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >>
>>
>> OK, so you agree that a calendrical correction is applied to the solar
>> time.
>>
>
> I had specifically requested that you leave the matter to those who can
> appreciate how the transfer of the Equation of Time principles from its
> pre-Copernican purpose of governing the creation of the 24 hour day and
> its seamless transition to the next 24 hour hour day was adapted to its
> heliocentric application to the principle of independent and constant
> axial rotation.

I'll take that as a 'Yes' - the Equation of Time governs the return of the
sun in 24 hours by applying an adjustment to the true clock time. The
Equation of Time varies through the year, hence a calendrical adjustment is
needed.

> If nobody can go so far as to acknowledge that it never was neccessary
> to introduce celestial sphere geometry to arrive at the correlation of
> axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour then there is absolutely nothing
> I can do about it.It remains a horrendous error to justify the return
> of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds using the axial and orbital
> motions of the Earth but again,there is nothing I can do about that
> either.

With accurate time measurement based on the 23 56 04 sidereal day there is
no need for an orbital 'correlation'. Sidereal day measurement is entirely
based on axial motion.

> I can show you where the rubbish began with Maskelyne who opposed
> Harrison and his chronometer which keeps the standard pace of a clock
> in sync with axial rotation but my business is to promote the positive
> side of astronomy and timekeeping and not strictly correcting clowns
> like Maskelyne,Newton and Flamsteed .

> Put the following title in the search field of the Royal Journals -
>
> Some Remarks upon the Equation of Time, and the True Manner of
> Computing
>
> http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(rglh3y55x100x5nyim4p0k45)/app/home/main.asp?referrer=default
>
> This silly man is doing what you all do,make up whatever explanation
> you think will fly without even bothering to make the effort to grasp
> the exquisite and easy to understand two step process with one foot in
> pre-Copernican astronomy and the other in heliocentric astronomy.
>
>
>
>> > It is how the Equation of Time principles which govern the creation of
>> > the 24 hour day get transfered to the heliocentric adaption for axial
>> > rotation which is breathtaking in its genius and its intricacies.Having
>> > delivered the insight by which the orbital motion of the Earth
>> > resolved the observed motions of the planets, by dividing the Earth's
>> > motions into seperate axial and orbital entities,these great
>> > astronomers could then adapt the Equation of Time principles to axial
>> > rotation in isolation.
>>
>> Which great astronomers are these ? Please let's be specific.
>> And do you understand that the Equation of Time has nothing to do with
>> the
>> axial alignment of the Earth?
>
> I have done what I could to promote astronomy in a contemporary
> atmosphere which only recognises magnification as being the ultimate
> ends of astronomy.Nobody is doing anything without the correct point of
> departure for astronomy ,that being recognising the independent axial
> rotation of the Earth and the cycle to which human existence is
> closely tied to.

Once more, I am astonished by your hubris (at believing that you can define
for everyone the 'correct point of departure for astronomy') and your
ability to miss the point (the independence of the Earth's axial motion is
explicit only by reference to sidereal chronology).

Date: 15 Oct 2006 04:30:32
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> OG wrote:
> > "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3338d$45310eb9$4212a52c$14591@TULAROSA.NET...
> >> OG wrote:
> >>> Try again, but try and do it better.
> >>>
> >>> Or accept that you are not able to support your argument and withdraw. .
> >> Do you kick sick puppies and then gloat about how strong you?
> >> Please put this poor sick guy in your kill file and leave him be.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Greg Crinklaw
> >
> > Greg, I must protest.
> > O36 clearly has some point he's trying to put over - obviously I think he's
> > incorrect in his view as currently stated; but as an incorrigible teacher I
> > need to find out why he believes what he does so that I can either direct
> > him to the flaws in his understanding and change his view, or (possibly)
> > develop a valid synthesis between both views so that we can move on.
>
> I understand that, because at least at one time I had the same, um,
> "problem." ;-) But I think your are forgetting the fact that mental
> illness is not a myth: it really exists! This person has been making
> his odd arguments around here long enough that the consensus (it's not
> just me) is that he truly needs professional help. Arguing with him
> could have consequences that you can't imagine...
>
> Greg
>

I leave you with the feebleminded Newtonian view which is not good
enough for astronomers or astronomy -

"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

Maybe the modern disease which cannot find fault with that 17th
century numbskull is far more disturbing than the technical arguments
which can easily show where his false version of retrogrades and their
resolution are not supported by observations and the original texts of
Copernicus and the early heliocentrists .

" In this arrangement, therefore, we discover a marvelous symmetry of
the universe, and an established harmonious linkage between the motion
of the spheres and their size, such as can be found in no other way.
For this permits a not inattentive student to perceive why the
forward and backward arcs appear greater in Jupiter than in Saturn and
smaller than in Mars, and on the other hand greater in Venus than in
Mercury. This reversal in direction appears more frequently in Saturn
than in Jupiter, and also more rarely in Mars and Venus than in
Mercury..... All these phenomena proceed from the same cause, which is
in the earth's motion." COPERNICUS

He does not talk of what the motion of the planets look like from the
Sun,he presents how the observed motions of the planets are explained
by an orbitally moving Earth.He then explains how axial rotation
explains the daily cycle.

You dare call yourselves 'astronomers ' when you can't even acknowledge
basic heliocentric principles which isolate axial rotation for the
clock system and orbital motion for heliocentricity.

> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye

Date: 14 Oct 2006 06:35:40
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

John Carruthers wrote:
> > The statement by Newton is completely incorrect and can be easily seen
> > to be incorrect.The only acceptable way to treat retrogrades and their
> > resolution is like thus -
> >
> > Against the stellar background the motions of the planets are >seen<
>
> Read "Appear".
> This is a figure of speech, it is not meant to be taken literally, an
> autistic could grasp this one.
>

Against the stellar background the motions of the other planets appear
to move forward,stop ,move backwards (retrograde) and then move forward
again.From an orbitally moving Earth the orbital motion of the other
planets are seen to move around the Sun hence a faster moving Earth
overtaking the slower moving outer planets is the main argument
Copernicus used to explain the motion of the Earth between Venus and
Mars around the Sun -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

It is easy to grasp how the observed view from an orbitally moving
Earth in isolation makes the observed motions of the other planets
around the Sun so easy to understand and how it then becomes possible
to consider the axial rotation of the Earth in isolation.What makes the
Newtonian mutation to Copernican reasoning so destructive is that in
jumping to the Sun to resolve what can only be accurately done by an
orbitally moving Earth,the ability to isolate axial rotation from
orbital motion is lost .

"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

The loss of Copernican heliocentric reasoning or rather, the current
dominance of the false Newtonian view would probably have continued on
unnoticed were it not for contemporary imaging techniques which make
the original heliocentric reasoning so easy to understand.As the
great Western heliocentric achievement is also a shared astronomical
heritage,it is remarkable that not even one astrophgotographer has yet
to affirm that planetary motions around the Sun are seen directly from
an orbitally moving Earth.If they have any doubt they can read the
words of Galileo who affirms it -

[Here Salviati explains Jupiter's motion, then follows with:]

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

You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion --
if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632, Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

By many degrees of magnitude there is nothing remotely close in
importance to the destructive way in which Newton's false view
dominates.It destroys the ability to isolate axial and orbital motions
through the original heliocentric reasoning and subsequently affects
the other great achievement of the principles which correlate clocks
with axial rotation in isolation at 24 hours/360 degrees.

Why defend something which is repulsive when the original insights of
the great astronomers are so enjoyable ?.

"
> >to move forward,stop,move backwards (retrograde) and then move forward
> > again.From an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
> > directly in our and their heliocentric motion around the Sun.Hence the
> > gorgeous Copernican insight can now be easily understood using
> > contemporary imaging -
> >
>
> Base your babbling on observation of the real universe gezza.
> Align a narrow tube on the Sun at noon on a particular day, time the
> realignment. Do this daily over the course of a year, you know, one
> elliptical, wobbly, circumnavigation of the Sun by the Earth/moon
> system.
> (for this exercise ignore the minor Chandler wobbles etc)
>
> Do the same with another tube locked in possition on a a fixed star of
> your choice. Time the reapearance of the star in your tube sight.
> Do this daily over the course of a year, you know, one elliptical,
> wobbly, circumnavigation of the Sun by the Earth/moon system.
> (for this exercise ignore the minor Chandler wobbles etc)
>
> Use any accurate timing device you like, invent a ten hour day if you
> so choose, so long as it is consistent.
>
> Then account for the observations. No quoting, no plagiarism, no
> arbitrary inventions.
>
> JC

Date: 14 Oct 2006 06:08:01
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Against the stellar background the motions of the Earth appear to move
forward,stop ,move backwards (retrograde) and then move forward
again.From an orbitally moving Earth the orbital motion of the other
planets are seen to move around the Sun hence a faster moving Earth
overtaking the slower moving outer planets is the main argument
Copernicus used to explain the motion of the Earth between Venus and
Mars around the Sun -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Because the Newtonian mutation is so destructive and so dominant it is
worthwhile dealing with the matter for those who will eventually teach
children what Copernicus did and how he did it.

"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

The time lapse footage shows that planetary motions around the Sun are
seen directly from Earth thereby highlighting the incorrect statement
of Newton.Like cars travelling around a traffic island, a faster car in
an inner lane will see slower moving cars in an outer lane appear to
fall behind as the car overtakes them,the planetary orbital equivalent
becomes obvious from an orbitally moving Earth as Jupiter and Saturn
appear to fall behind against the background.As there is no need to
stand in the center of the traffic island to realise what occurs as
your car overtakes the slower moving cars neither is it required to
jump to the Sun to explain what is occuring with the motions of Jupiter
and Saturn.This is what makes the Newtonian mutation not just
incorrect but particularly destructuive in the ability to isolate
axial and orbital motions for their respective purposes.

Astrophotographers should be tripping over themselves to promote what
happens when you go outside and make judgements of how retrograde
motion of the planets against the stellar background is resolved by
putting the Earth in a faster motion and in an inner orbital circuit
but the only thing I can think of is that they hate Copernican
heliocentricity and only wish magnification to represent astronomy.

Nothing you can do can save the false Newtonian view on what
retrogrades are and how they are resolved but then again,the isolation
of the Earth's orbital motion by Copernicus and how itr explains the
observed motions of the other planets is so spectacular that you would
be extremely dull and dour to not notice it with contemporary imaging.

John Carruthers wrote:
> > The statement by Newton is completely incorrect and can be easily seen
> > to be incorrect.The only acceptable way to treat retrogrades and their
> > resolution is like thus -
> >
> > Against the stellar background the motions of the planets are >seen<
>
> Read "Appear".
> This is a figure of speech, it is not meant to be taken literally, an
> autistic could grasp this one.
>
> >to move forward,stop,move backwards (retrograde) and then move forward
> > again.From an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
> > directly in our and their heliocentric motion around the Sun.Hence the
> > gorgeous Copernican insight can now be easily understood using
> > contemporary imaging -
> >
>
> Base your babbling on observation of the real universe gezza.
> Align a narrow tube on the Sun at noon on a particular day, time the
> realignment. Do this daily over the course of a year, you know, one
> elliptical, wobbly, circumnavigation of the Sun by the Earth/moon
> system.
> (for this exercise ignore the minor Chandler wobbles etc)
>
> Do the same with another tube locked in possition on a a fixed star of
> your choice. Time the reapearance of the star in your tube sight.
> Do this daily over the course of a year, you know, one elliptical,
> wobbly, circumnavigation of the Sun by the Earth/moon system.
> (for this exercise ignore the minor Chandler wobbles etc)
>
> Use any accurate timing device you like, invent a ten hour day if you
> so choose, so long as it is consistent.
>
> Then account for the observations. No quoting, no plagiarism, no
> arbitrary inventions.
>
> JC

Date: 15 Oct 2006 04:07:11
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160833297.030179.198010@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Good of you to be so fast as to pick up on my typo,I withdrew the post
> > once I spotted it and replaced it with a more accurate version.
> >
> > If your only achievement is to spot the typo then good for you but the
> > substance of the Copernican heliocentric reasoning remains unaltered -
> >
> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >
> > Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to move
> > forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again but
> > from an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
> > directly around the Sun.
> >
> > The false and destructive Newtonian view -
> >
> > "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
> >
> > I have yet to see another participant to affirm that planetary motions
> > are seen directly from Earth even with the time lapse footage before
> > them.
> >
>
> You still haven't explained why Newton's statement is incorrect. I read his
> statement as equivalent to yours. If it is not the same, you need to explain
> why
>
> [Oriel36]
> Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to move
> forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again
>
> [Newton]
> For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde.
>
> No difference there.

Finish it off - From an orbitally moving Earth the motions of the
planets around the Sun are seen direct .

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Seen from an orbitally moving Earth,the observed motions of the outer
planets around the Sun can be easily understood.Isolating the orbital
motion of the Earth by using orbital comparisons leads to isolating
axial rotation as a means to explain the daily cycle .

Try explaining axial rotation and orbital motion using the Newtonian
view and you lose the entire heliocentric working principles which
split axial and orbital motions -

"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

When he made that switch in the matter of what retorgrades are and how
they are resolved,the entire heliocentric system and the careful
reasoning which brought it about ,collapsed temporarily.You cannot make
a mistake like that and not expect catastrophic consequences and this
is exactly the situation.

In short,in order to justify the Newtonian mutation you have to find
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and many of the original heliocentric
astronomers wrong.I am completely indifferent to personal attack as I
approach the matter as a shared astronomical heritage backed up by
observations and the original texts which resolve retrogrades as
something which is seen from an orbitally moving Earth rather than what
a person like Newton thinks of what planetary motions looks like from
the Sun.

In the matter of retrograde,s if you can accept the switch Newton
made then good for you,I am prepared to accept it as a catastrophic
mistake rather than a fraudulent switch.If the time lapse footage of
the motions of Jupiter and Saturn and the images of the planets taken
against the same stellar background do not convince you that a
destructive mutation occured I do not know what would.

Date: 15 Oct 2006 16:25:24
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160910431.089087.73100@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160833297.030179.198010@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> > Good of you to be so fast as to pick up on my typo,I withdrew the post
>> > once I spotted it and replaced it with a more accurate version.
>> >
>> > If your only achievement is to spot the typo then good for you but the
>> > substance of the Copernican heliocentric reasoning remains unaltered -
>> >
>> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>> >
>> > Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to move
>> > forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again but
>> > from an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
>> > directly around the Sun.
>> >
>> > The false and destructive Newtonian view -
>> >
>> > "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
>> >
>> > I have yet to see another participant to affirm that planetary motions
>> > are seen directly from Earth even with the time lapse footage before
>> > them.
>> >
>>
>> You still haven't explained why Newton's statement is incorrect. I read
>> his
>> statement as equivalent to yours. If it is not the same, you need to
>> explain
>> why
>>
>> [Oriel36]
>> Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to move
>> forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again
>>
>> [Newton]
>> For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
>> stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde.
>>
>> No difference there.
>
> Finish it off - From an orbitally moving Earth the motions of the
> planets around the Sun are seen direct .
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Nope, not seen direct.

> Seen from an orbitally moving Earth,the observed motions of the outer
> planets around the Sun can be easily understood.Isolating the orbital
> motion of the Earth by using orbital comparisons leads to isolating
> axial rotation as a means to explain the daily cycle .

The key words are 'understood' and 'isolating' - The 'observed motions'
(i.e - first direct, then retrograde, then direct) need to be interpreted
before they can be understood. as the projection onto the celestial sphere
of the combined motions of the Earth and respectivr planets around the Sun.

> Try explaining axial rotation and orbital motion using the Newtonian
> view and you lose the entire heliocentric working principles which
> split axial and orbital motions -
>
> "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

Yes, that's how they appear from Earth - and the appearance needs to be
interpreted .

> When he made that switch in the matter of what retorgrades are and how
> they are resolved,the entire heliocentric system and the careful
> reasoning which brought it about ,collapsed temporarily.You cannot make
> a mistake like that and not expect catastrophic consequences and this
> is exactly the situation.
>

What do you mean by 'When he made _that_ switch. . . ' - what switch is
that?

Date: 09 Oct 2006 02:49:35
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160334592.734597.306600@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1159874729.869417.286280@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >> OK, so you agree that a calendrical correction is applied to the solar
> >> time.
> >>
> >
> > I had specifically requested that you leave the matter to those who can
> > appreciate how the transfer of the Equation of Time principles from its
> > pre-Copernican purpose of governing the creation of the 24 hour day and
> > its seamless transition to the next 24 hour hour day was adapted to its
> > heliocentric application to the principle of independent and constant
> > axial rotation.
>
> I'll take that as a 'Yes' - the Equation of Time governs the return of the
> sun in 24 hours by applying an adjustment to the true clock time. The
> Equation of Time varies through the year, hence a calendrical adjustment is
> needed.
>
> > If nobody can go so far as to acknowledge that it never was neccessary
> > to introduce celestial sphere geometry to arrive at the correlation of
> > axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour then there is absolutely nothing
> > I can do about it.It remains a horrendous error to justify the return
> > of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds using the axial and orbital
> > motions of the Earth but again,there is nothing I can do about that
> > either.
>
> With accurate time measurement based on the 23 56 04 sidereal day there is
> no need for an orbital 'correlation'. Sidereal day measurement is entirely
> based on axial motion.
>
> > I can show you where the rubbish began with Maskelyne who opposed
> > Harrison and his chronometer which keeps the standard pace of a clock
> > in sync with axial rotation but my business is to promote the positive
> > side of astronomy and timekeeping and not strictly correcting clowns
> > like Maskelyne,Newton and Flamsteed .
>
> > Put the following title in the search field of the Royal Journals -
> >
> > Some Remarks upon the Equation of Time, and the True Manner of
> > Computing
> >
> > http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(rglh3y55x100x5nyim4p0k45)/app/home/main.asp?referrer=default
> >
> > This silly man is doing what you all do,make up whatever explanation
> > you think will fly without even bothering to make the effort to grasp
> > the exquisite and easy to understand two step process with one foot in
> > pre-Copernican astronomy and the other in heliocentric astronomy.
> >
> >
> >
> >> > It is how the Equation of Time principles which govern the creation of
> >> > the 24 hour day get transfered to the heliocentric adaption for axial
> >> > rotation which is breathtaking in its genius and its intricacies.Having
> >> > delivered the insight by which the orbital motion of the Earth
> >> > resolved the observed motions of the planets, by dividing the Earth's
> >> > motions into seperate axial and orbital entities,these great
> >> > astronomers could then adapt the Equation of Time principles to axial
> >> > rotation in isolation.
> >>
> >> Which great astronomers are these ? Please let's be specific.
> >> And do you understand that the Equation of Time has nothing to do with
> >> the
> >> axial alignment of the Earth?
> >
> > I have done what I could to promote astronomy in a contemporary
> > atmosphere which only recognises magnification as being the ultimate
> > ends of astronomy.Nobody is doing anything without the correct point of
> > departure for astronomy ,that being recognising the independent axial
> > rotation of the Earth and the cycle to which human existence is
> > closely tied to.
>
> Once more, I am astonished by your hubris (at believing that you can define
> for everyone the 'correct point of departure for astronomy') and your
> ability to miss the point (the independence of the Earth's axial motion is
> explicit only by reference to sidereal chronology).

The correct point of departure for astronomy is recognising how the
orbital motion of the Earth in isolation affirms that our motion
around the Sun is seen directly through grasping the the faster Earth
is overtaking the slower forwarding moving outer planets -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

The time lapse footage of Saturn and Jupiter should be the pride of the
astrophotographers for it explains the main argument for
heliocentricity.

The flip side of orbital motion in isolation is axial rotation in
isolation and that is where the correlation between axial rotation and
clocks come in.There never was an external reference required to
explain axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour,just a subtle and
exquisite use of intutive intelligence to grasp the creation of the 24
hour day and how it was transfered to its heliocentric form in terms of
axial rotation at 15 degrees per hoyur.It should be one of the jewels
of a shared astronomical heritage and a powerful working tool .

So,you want to reference axial rotation to the return of a distant star
in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and that is your right as I
completely understand the entire Newtonian framework is built on the
false concept.I could appeal to astrophotographers to retain the
convenience of the Ra/Dec system while leaving the the motions of the
Earth as seperate and independent to each other but as this is a shared
astronomical heritage and this information was already known centuries
ago,I should not have had to try to hard to get the correct principles
noticed .The option for the point of departure for astronomy may be the
Copernican use of orbital motion of the Earth in isolation or the axial
rotation of the Earth in isolation,either way they do not require
celestial sphere geometers nor their 'primium mobile' to exist.

The pseudo-confidence of people like Maskelyne,people who trumped up
whatever explanation they thought they needed to promote their own
systems is more a disease than anything else,after giving you the
outlines of the two step process which links ptre-Copernican and
heliocentric astronomy through the Equation of Time correction you will
still promote axial rotation to the return of a star.In this case,be my
guest but that not one person has ever affirmed the correct value for
axial rotation (24 hours/360 degrees ) in this or any other forum is
not astonishing,it is heartbreaking.

Date: 09 Oct 2006 07:44:14
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Hello Mr Oriel. It is good to see you back here in sci.astro.amateur.

Date: 09 Oct 2006 19:34:35
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160387375.844130.160280@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>.There never was an external reference required to
> explain axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour,just a subtle and

When you say that no external reference is required, you are in fact saying
that no external reference is possible. The best you can do is say that 'On
average, over an approximate 365 rotation period it gives a repeating
pattern; however it is very approximate and is nearly four degrees wrong at
certain times of the year' .

However, what is more disturbing is that you continue to believe that you
have the right to tell others that yours is the only right way to think of
astronomy.

Date: 15 Oct 2006 12:34:30
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160910431.089087.73100@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160833297.030179.198010@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Good of you to be so fast as to pick up on my typo,I withdrew the post
> >> > once I spotted it and replaced it with a more accurate version.
> >> >
> >> > If your only achievement is to spot the typo then good for you but the
> >> > substance of the Copernican heliocentric reasoning remains unaltered -
> >> >
> >> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >> >
> >> > Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to move
> >> > forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again but
> >> > from an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
> >> > directly around the Sun.
> >> >
> >> > The false and destructive Newtonian view -
> >> >
> >> > "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
> >> >
> >> > I have yet to see another participant to affirm that planetary motions
> >> > are seen directly from Earth even with the time lapse footage before
> >> > them.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You still haven't explained why Newton's statement is incorrect. I read
> >> his
> >> statement as equivalent to yours. If it is not the same, you need to
> >> explain
> >> why
> >>
> >> [Oriel36]
> >> Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to move
> >> forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again
> >>
> >> [Newton]
> >> For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> >> stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde.
> >>
> >> No difference there.
> >
> > Finish it off - From an orbitally moving Earth the motions of the
> > planets around the Sun are seen direct .
> >
> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> Nope, not seen direct.
>

Hey,you are not arguing against me,you are arguing against observations
which dictate that planetary motions around the Sun are seen from an
orbitally moving Earth.I would love to say that it is immediately
apparent to everyone from the time lapse footage and from the
explanation given by Copernicus but these are very unusual times.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

> > Seen from an orbitally moving Earth,the observed motions of the outer
> > planets around the Sun can be easily understood.Isolating the orbital
> > motion of the Earth by using orbital comparisons leads to isolating
> > axial rotation as a means to explain the daily cycle .
>
> The key words are 'understood' and 'isolating' - The 'observed motions'
> (i.e - first direct, then retrograde, then direct) need to be interpreted
> before they can be understood. as the projection onto the celestial sphere
> of the combined motions of the Earth and respectivr planets around the Sun.
>

There are no words necessary,the plotted motions of the planets against
the same stellar background were the same for Ptolemaic astronomers as
they were for the heliocentric astronomers -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg

The conclusions of what those plotted positions meant relied on either
persiodic spiralling motions seen from a stationary Earth (Ptolemy) or
heliocentric motion seen from an orbitally moving Earth (Copernicus).

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

> > Try explaining axial rotation and orbital motion using the Newtonian
> > view and you lose the entire heliocentric working principles which
> > split axial and orbital motions -
> >
> > "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
>
> Yes, that's how they appear from Earth - and the appearance needs to be
> interpreted .
>

How many polished reputations are based on the catastrophic Newtonian
switch.How many people here behave like Newton and invent whatever
story they need despite having the original words of the great
astronomers before them and especially having modern imaging.

> > When he made that switch in the matter of what retorgrades are and how
> > they are resolved,the entire heliocentric system and the careful
> > reasoning which brought it about ,collapsed temporarily.You cannot make
> > a mistake like that and not expect catastrophic consequences and this
> > is exactly the situation.
> >
>
> What do you mean by 'When he made _that_ switch. . . ' - what switch is
> that?

The switch Newton made was not just in resolving retrogrades by
jumping to the Sun but in what apparent retrogrades are.By resolving
retrogrades, or the plotted positions of the planets against the
stellar background, from an orbitally moving Earth,,an observer gets to
see orbital motion in isolation and treat axial rotation as an
independent motion which causes the daily cycle.

Astronomy could not suffer an error like Newton's without serious
consequences hence the dismal situation today.It may be that the
indrination is so severe that not even the image which represent
what retrogrades are and its translation into time lapse footage of
Jupiter and Saturn demonstrating that the heliocentric motions of the
planets are indeed seen from Earth,an orbitally moving Earth is the
only way to consider retorgrades and their resolution.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

The words courage,bravery and all those things which make existence
worthwhile seldom enter into a discussion here but these traits are
required to remove the rubbish which hijacked the great Western
astronomical insights.You said you are a teacher,well if you are,your
duty lies in teaching children what is the correct way to look out on
the celestial arena and present how the great astronomical cycles which
make existence possible was developed by great men using careful
observations and sparkling reasoning.

For yourself,you can keep the Newtonian mutation for the junk that it
is -

"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

I now detest presenting the original texts of Copernicus,Kepler and
Galileo in support of the view that heliocentric motion is seen
directly from Earth without any indication that participants here
comprehend the difference and why it is important to keep axial and
orbital motions seperate through the original Copernican reasoning in
resolving the observed motion of the planets.

They say a drop of wine in sewage is sewage and a drop of sewage in
wine is still sewage,in this case,the catastrophic Newtonian error into
the exquisite reasoning of my astronomical ancestors is and always will
be repulsive.As it is a shared astronomical heritage it is entirely up
to others to restore the heliocentric heritage using modern imaging
tools.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 01:27:34
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160940870.263595.136670@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160910431.089087.73100@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > OG wrote:
>> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1160833297.030179.198010@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Good of you to be so fast as to pick up on my typo,I withdrew the
>> >> > post
>> >> > once I spotted it and replaced it with a more accurate version.
>> >> >
>> >> > If your only achievement is to spot the typo then good for you but
>> >> > the
>> >> > substance of the Copernican heliocentric reasoning remains
>> >> > unaltered -
>> >> >
>> >> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>> >> >
>> >> > Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to
>> >> > move
>> >> > forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again
>> >> > but
>> >> > from an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
>> >> > directly around the Sun.
>> >> >
>> >> > The false and destructive Newtonian view -
>> >> >
>> >> > "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
>> >> >
>> >> > I have yet to see another participant to affirm that planetary
>> >> > motions
>> >> > are seen directly from Earth even with the time lapse footage before
>> >> > them.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You still haven't explained why Newton's statement is incorrect. I
>> >> read
>> >> his
>> >> statement as equivalent to yours. If it is not the same, you need to
>> >> explain
>> >> why
>> >>
>> >> [Oriel36]
>> >> Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to
>> >> move
>> >> forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again
>> >>
>> >> [Newton]
>> >> For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
>> >> stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde.
>> >>
>> >> No difference there.
>> >
>> > Finish it off - From an orbitally moving Earth the motions of the
>> > planets around the Sun are seen direct .
>> >
>> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>>
>> Nope, not seen direct.
>>
>
> Hey,you are not arguing against me,you are arguing against observations
> which dictate that planetary motions around the Sun are seen from an
> orbitally moving Earth.

Oh don't be so bloody pompous .
Yes, it is possible _in theory_ to determine the orbital motion from the
observed movement of the planets (and it took the determination and genius
of Kepler to perform the task for Mars and Earth on the basis of Tycho's
measurements. It also took the best part of his professional life to come up
with a handful of 'rules of thumb' regarding orbital motion) .
The trouble with wishing to do it _in theory_ is that until Newton there was
no _theory_.

Newton's genius allowed him to change the paradigm so that orbital motion
was expressed in terms of position in relation to the Sun which gave the
'explanation' for Kepler's 3 laws. The proof of the power of Newton's
position is that Kepler's 3 laws all emerged from Newton's 1 law.

Are you able to determine the observed orbit of Saturn without using
Newtonian heliocentric geometry? Yes ?
Then prove it by producing an almanac of Saturn for the next 6 months
without using any published orbital elements, but purely based on the last
12 months observed positions of the planet and no mention of heliocentric
coordinates.

The challenge is set. I _will_ need to see your working.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 17:01:25
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

On 2006-10-16 09:27 +0900, OG wrote:

[ Big chunk of wasted snippage ]

> The challenge is set. I _will_ need to see your working.

You just don't get it. Gerald isn't of sound mind. He has posted many
hundreds (thousands?) of messages over the last 6 years discussing his
ideas about Newton and Copernicus to all who hadn't killfiled him yet.

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 12:50:08
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Len wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My wife and I are planning an ocean passage with our sailboat next year
> and amongst a lot of other things we are learning celestial navigation.
> For recognition-practice but also for fun we are looking for
> starmapping software. I have downloaded a few but mostly I was a bit
> disappointed with the results/images.
>
> What I would like is a program that uses lat/lon and UTC-time to
> present a more realistic, high resolution picture including the
> horizon.
> It doesn't have to be freeware but then again the price would have to
> be reasonable.
>
> I hope someone can point me in the right direction???
>
> Thanks a lot in advance,
>
> Len.

Here you go -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif

A star will return in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec based on 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days (leap year) otherwise that Ra/Dec system
will not work.

The moral of the constellational story is - never,ever try to justify
celestial sphere geometry using the axial and orbital motions of the
Earth,you can try but you are going to have one helluva job trying to
fit the annual orbital motion of the Earth into a calendrical system.

The second complimentary moral of the story is - for goodness sake
recognise the celestial sphere/constellations as a convenience but do
not ever try to fit it to terrestial longitudes,axial rotation or any
other physical explanation.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 19:28:12
From: Sjouke Burry
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Date: 25 Sep 2006 04:48:18
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Len wrote:
difficulty to pleasantly work with the curved image
> but practice will be my friend here too...
>
> What Oriel said is over my head but hey I am still a certified ignorant
> in your field.
>

Hi:

Oriole is an Internet Loon. Actually, the average bird knows more
science than it does, I'd guess.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 22:45:20
From: Len
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Everybody who responded, many thanks.

Stellarium is imho a lot of value for no money. It's always refreshing
to find a field where the commercial lifestyle hasn't smuthered all
others.

I still have some difficulty to pleasantly work with the curved image
but practice will be my friend here too...

What Oriel said is over my head but hey I am still a certified ignorant
in your field.
I just do my monkey-like learned trick, i.e. make my (very simplified)
calculations without understanding/overseeing all the steps for the
full 100% and what do you know, I can actually pinpoint my ship on my
paper charts in roughly a circle of 5 miles diameter, not just the
latitude is (practically) correct, longitude is also. No need to
carefully measure the distances I achieve in east or west-direction.
Sharks never seize to attack and eat my fin-log anyway... :-)

Len.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 12:32:09
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

RMOLLISE wrote:
> HI:
>
> I'm curious, Oriole. Are you saying the sidereal day _is_ 23 hours and
> 56 minutes long...or that it _isn't_? What do those voices inside your
> head say?
>

You are probably the last in the forum to realise that a star returns
to a meridian in 23 hours 56 min based on a system of 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days.Somewhere in that head of yours you may
possibly feel a twinge of recognition that you cannot justify the
orbital motion of the Earth where there are alternate number of days
every fourth year.

You probably seen a few of the formely leading lights of
sci.astro.magnification disappear to give you a hint that their time is
over or at least they run the risk of highlighting their stupidity
should they post on matters other than telescopes and imaging.

Tell me how it feels to be 3 minutes 56 seconds wrong for the value
assigned to the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees ?.This is not
some mindnumbing detail but rather an explicit and obvious
difference,so big that you are on the same intellectual and intuitive
footing as the creationists.

> And as long as I've got your ear...which pony do they favor in the 3rd
> race at Santa Anita?
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of:
> Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> and
> The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>
>
> oriole36 wrote:
> >
> > A star will return in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec based on 3 years of 365
> > days and 1 year of 366 days (leap year) otherwise that Ra/Dec system
> > will not work.
> >
> > The moral of the constellational story is - never,ever try to justify
> > celestial sphere geometry using the axial and orbital motions of the
> > Earth,you can try but you are going to have one helluva job trying to
> > fit the annual orbital motion of the Earth into a calendrical system.
> >
> > The second complimentary moral of the story is - for goodness sake
> > recognise the celestial sphere/constellations as a convenience but do
> > not ever try to fit it to terrestial longitudes,axial rotation or any
> > other physical explanation.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 21:51:58
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1159212729.585895.280410@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> RMOLLISE wrote:
>> HI:
>>
>> I'm curious, Oriole. Are you saying the sidereal day _is_ 23 hours and
>> 56 minutes long...or that it _isn't_? What do those voices inside your
>> head say?
>>
>
> You are probably the last in the forum to realise that a star returns
> to a meridian in 23 hours 56 min based on a system of 3 years of 365
> days and 1 year of 366 days.

You prefer to have the solstice progress through the calendar?

Date: 10 Oct 2006 04:05:16
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160387375.844130.160280@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >.There never was an external reference required to
> > explain axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour,just a subtle and
>
> When you say that no external reference is required, you are in fact saying
> that no external reference is possible.

I do not say it,the original astronomical principles which we inherit
dictate that no external reference is required to justify axial
rotation and the correlation with the standard pace set by clocks.

It is an absolute jewel and a marvel to appreciate how the
pre-Copernican and heliocentric adaption slot together to generate the
clock system allied to axial rotation and despite the various
modifications which were brought in for the convenience of civil
timekeeping (1884) the underlying astronomical principles are still
governing it all.

As it is a shared astronomical heritage ,it is up to another individual
to promote the two step process linking the human devised principle of
the equable 24 hour day and how it was neatly grafted into the
discovery that the Earth has an independent axial rotation making the
daily cycle possible.The tricky part is knowing how to use the Equation
of Time noon correction which creates the 24 hour day and just as
important,how one 24 hour day elapses seamlessly into the next 24 hour
day.These two pieces of information were grafted into heliocentric
astronomy as a product of determining that the Earth's orbital motion
explained the observed behavior of the planets and axial rotation
explained the daily cycle in terms of its rotation to the Sun.

The best you can do is say that 'On
> average, over an approximate 365 rotation period it gives a repeating
> pattern; however it is very approximate and is nearly four degrees wrong at
> certain times of the year' .
> However, what is more disturbing is that you continue to believe that you
> have the right to tell others that yours is the only right way to think of
> astronomy.

The motions of the Earth dictate what works and what does not so there
never is an attempt to tell others what to think however there is no
shortage of people who force the axial and orbital motion of the Earth
into the calendar system of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days
just for the convenience of observation.The so-called 'universal law of
gravitation' amounts to fitting solar system motion into the Ra/Dec
system by promoting celestial sphetre/primium mobile geometry as a
basis for the actual motions of the Earth and thereby destroying the
ability to appreciate how the orbital motions of the planets can be
seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth and how the clock system
was grafted into the insight of axial rotation.

Again,with all this hanging over your heads,nobody is doing anything
worthwhile in terms of using the Earth's motions and orientations to
the Sun and especially in the area of climatology which requires an
accurate version of the relationship between axial and orbital motion
of the Earth.I can present a streamlined version of that relationship
in terms of oscillatingplanetary temperature bands thereby dropping
the uneccessary variable axial tilt of the Earth to the Sun as the
explanation for global climate -

http://www.climateprediction.net/images/sci_images/annual.gif

Retaining celestial sphere geometry is entirely counter-productive to
the area of climate studies but few ,at least it would seem that
way,are comfortable enough with a new way to approach global climate
from an astronomical point of view to discuss the matter.In this
respect,the only real negative side is the lack of people to discuss
the astronomical aspect and I assure you it would clear out the vast
majority who make a racket with global warming while having no
planetary framework to express the changing nature of the temperature
bands.

This is never about finding those 17th century guys wrong,this was and
is always about the productive avenues which exist for those who can
quickly alter their efforts to supporting accurate working principles
for axial and orbital motion found in Copernican heliocentricity and in
the correlation between the 24 hour clock system and axial rotation.

Date: 10 Oct 2006 18:56:31
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Date: 10 Oct 2006 21:49:56
From: Sjouke Burry
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160478316.004532.277930@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>OG wrote:
>>
>>>"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1160387375.844130.160280@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>.There never was an external reference required to
>>>>explain axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour,just a subtle and
>>>
>>>When you say that no external reference is required, you are in fact
>>>saying
>>>that no external reference is possible.
>>
>>I do not say it,the original astronomical principles which we inherit
>>dictate that no external reference is required to justify axial
>>rotation and the correlation with the standard pace set by clocks.
>
>
> Fool
> How do you know when you are back in the same place without an external
> reference.
>
>
Use a gyro.

Date: 10 Oct 2006 12:12:10
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Date: 16 Oct 2006 08:37:10
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Trane Francks wrote:
> On 2006-10-16 09:27 +0900, OG wrote:
>
> [ Big chunk of wasted snippage ]
>
> > The challenge is set. I _will_ need to see your working.
>
> You just don't get it. Gerald isn't of sound mind. He has posted many
> hundreds (thousands?) of messages over the last 6 years discussing his
> ideas about Newton and Copernicus to all who hadn't killfiled him yet.
>
> trane
> --
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> // Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
> // Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

I know utter stupidity when I see it.

Thankfully there is now imaging and time lapse footage availible to
undo the Newtonian damage to the astronomical principles of the
heliocentric astronomers.

So stew in your worthless Newtonian conceptions based on celestial
sphere geometry and pretend that it is astronomy.It always happens that
when something as wonderful as the Copernican reasoning and the later
refinements exist they will eventually emerge from behind the tasteless
junk of mathematicians.

OG can teach his students what plotted positions of the planets
against the stellar background (retrogrades) are and how they are
resolved by an orbitally moving Earth.Anything else is junk.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:30:35
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160478316.004532.277930@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160387375.844130.160280@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >.There never was an external reference required to
>> > explain axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour,just a subtle and
>>
>> When you say that no external reference is required, you are in fact
>> saying
>> that no external reference is possible.
>
> I do not say it,the original astronomical principles which we inherit
> dictate that no external reference is required to justify axial
> rotation and the correlation with the standard pace set by clocks.
>
> It is an absolute jewel and a marvel to appreciate how the
> pre-Copernican and heliocentric adaption slot together to generate the
> clock system allied to axial rotation and despite the various
> modifications which were brought in for the convenience of civil
> timekeeping (1884) the underlying astronomical principles are still
> governing it all.
>

It would be interesting to transpose your thinking to a 'true astronomer' on
the moon, let's call him LoonyO (for lunar observer of course). LoonyO sits
on his chair and tries to apply your thinking to his position.

"I am on a non-rotating body" he thinks " clearly my axial motion is zero
degrees per hour, because I am constantly facing the Earth."

"However, because of orbital effects, the Earth does move around the sky a
small amount and I can devise an exquisite Equation that restores the
perfect non-rotation of the Moon at zero degrees per hour"

"Hmmm, I do have a problem here though because I can see that there are
stars that are moving with a clock-steady angular speed so there must be
some element of movement as well as the zero axial rotation - but that's ok
because that is celestial sphere geometry and can be ignored. How great it
is to be an inheritor of the one true view of astronomy - and how great not
to have to worry about the movement of the moon (there is none), nor the
earth (there is none), nor the sun and planets (there is some but that
doesn't need a coordinate frame because of intuitive astronomy ); and the
stars cannot be anything important, because all they need is magnification
(trivial and not true astronomy)"

Anything to add to LoonyO's thinking?

Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:52:51
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160940870.263595.136670@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160910431.089087.73100@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > OG wrote:
> >> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1160833297.030179.198010@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > Good of you to be so fast as to pick up on my typo,I withdrew the
> >> >> > post
> >> >> > once I spotted it and replaced it with a more accurate version.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If your only achievement is to spot the typo then good for you but
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > substance of the Copernican heliocentric reasoning remains
> >> >> > unaltered -
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to
> >> >> > move
> >> >> > forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > from an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
> >> >> > directly around the Sun.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The false and destructive Newtonian view -
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "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
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have yet to see another participant to affirm that planetary
> >> >> > motions
> >> >> > are seen directly from Earth even with the time lapse footage before
> >> >> > them.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You still haven't explained why Newton's statement is incorrect. I
> >> >> read
> >> >> his
> >> >> statement as equivalent to yours. If it is not the same, you need to
> >> >> explain
> >> >> why
> >> >>
> >> >> [Oriel36]
> >> >> Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to
> >> >> move
> >> >> forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again
> >> >>
> >> >> [Newton]
> >> >> For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> >> >> stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde.
> >> >>
> >> >> No difference there.
> >> >
> >> > Finish it off - From an orbitally moving Earth the motions of the
> >> > planets around the Sun are seen direct .
> >> >
> >> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >>
> >> Nope, not seen direct.
> >>
> >
> > Hey,you are not arguing against me,you are arguing against observations
> > which dictate that planetary motions around the Sun are seen from an
> > orbitally moving Earth.
>
> Oh don't be so bloody pompous .
> Yes, it is possible _in theory_ to determine the orbital motion from the
> observed movement of the planets (and it took the determination and genius
> of Kepler to perform the task for Mars and Earth on the basis of Tycho's
> measurements. It also took the best part of his professional life to come up
> with a handful of 'rules of thumb' regarding orbital motion) .
> The trouble with wishing to do it _in theory_ is that until Newton there was
> no _theory_.
>

Who gives a damn about 'theories' or how you choose to judge Copernicus
or Kepler,the Newtonian view of retrogrades and how they are resolved
is incorrect,damaging and are not supported by the careful work of the
heliocentric astronomers and more importantly,by contemporary imaging
of plotted positions and time lapse motion .

Anyone, with a little effort ,can appreciate the Earth's orbital motion
overtaking the slower moving outer planets and then consider how the
axial rotation of the Earth exists as a seperate motion which generates
the daily cycle .They can then admire the heliocentric adaption of the
equable 24 hour day to axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour by the two
step process using the Equation of Time correction.

> Newton's genius allowed him to change the paradigm so that orbital motion
> was expressed in terms of position in relation to the Sun which gave the
> 'explanation' for Kepler's 3 laws. The proof of the power of Newton's
> position is that Kepler's 3 laws all emerged from Newton's 1 law.
>

Newton was stupid astronomically but cunning in his methods,cunning
because what he did has no good ends.He created the AU by using
Flamsteed's false proof for axial rotation to the celestial sphere or
what amounts to the same thing - justifying the Earth's axial and
orbital motions through the return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds.

In any case,that is just advanced astronomical forensics and unsuitable
for particpants here who have yet to affirm basic,if
spectacular,astronomical insights such as the easy to understand
Copernican insight for axial and orbital motion.The Keplerian
refinements, which are indeed intricate, is what Isaac used or
exploited to destroy the simple Copernican reasoning and I can easily
show how he did it.

You are indrinated into the belief that Newton advanced the works of
Copernicus and the refinements of Kepler like so many other
generations,indeed you would not want it any other way, but
technically,Newton's attempt to force solar system geometry into the
Ra/Dec system by creating mean Sun/Earth distances from celestial
sphere geometry is junk -

PHENOMENON 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." newton

You are only doing what Newton originally started,make up whatever
story you think and hope nobody with enough competence will notice that
it is junk.I am not obliged to go through the Newtonian maneuvering
however I will give the man one thing,he was consistent in how he
constructed his idiosyncratic axial and orbital geometries which make
it easy top spot and correct.

> Are you able to determine the observed orbit of Saturn without using
> Newtonian heliocentric geometry? Yes ?
> Then prove it by producing an almanac of Saturn for the next 6 months
> without using any published orbital elements, but purely based on the last
> 12 months observed positions of the planet and no mention of heliocentric
> coordinates.
>

Look,the Newtonian view of what retrogrades are and how they are
resolved is false and damaging as planetary motions around the Sun are
seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth.

The loss of information by jumping to the Sun to explain heliocentric
motion is incredible and Copernicus correctly pointed out that the
arrangement of planets,the axial rotation of the Earth as an
independent motion,the speed at which the planets move and so much
more information can only be resolved by considering the dual motions
of the Earth.

> The challenge is set. I _will_ need to see your working.

You can dither around all you like,if the images of the plotted
positions of Jupiter and Saturn and their transfer into time lapse
footage is not enough for you to affirm that people can see
heliocentric motion from an orbitally moving Earth and thus show Newton
to be utterly stupid in this respect then I do not know what will.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

With all due respect to the conceptual Newtonian dog which is useless
for heliocentric working principles,there is no challenge.You either
justify Newton or oppose the heliocentric astronomers but you cannot
reconcile both and I assure you that is final.I did not require or
request Newtonian apologists,I require people who see the sparkling
reasoning of the orginal heliocentric astronomers and then they can do
what they like.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:39:37
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160992371.159088.132280@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> Oh don't be so bloody pompous .
>> Yes, it is possible _in theory_ to determine the orbital motion from
>> the
>> observed movement of the planets (and it took the determination and
>> genius
>> of Kepler to perform the task for Mars and Earth on the basis of Tycho's
>> measurements. It also took the best part of his professional life to come
>> up
>> with a handful of 'rules of thumb' regarding orbital motion) .
>> The trouble with wishing to do it _in theory_ is that until Newton there
>> was
>> no _theory_.
>>
>
> Who gives a damn about 'theories' or how you choose to judge Copernicus
> or Kepler,the Newtonian view of retrogrades and how they are resolved
> is incorrect,damaging and are not supported by the careful work of the
> heliocentric astronomers and more importantly,by contemporary imaging
> of plotted positions and time lapse motion .
>

Once more you resort to bluff and bluster to hide the fact that you cannot
justify your assertion that Newton's method is incorrect. If you can't
support your argument you should accept it and shut up.

>> Newton's genius allowed him to change the paradigm so that orbital motion
>> was expressed in terms of position in relation to the Sun which gave the
>> 'explanation' for Kepler's 3 laws. The proof of the power of Newton's
>> position is that Kepler's 3 laws all emerged from Newton's 1 law.
>>
>
> Newton was stupid astronomically but cunning in his methods,cunning
> because what he did has no good ends. <idiocy>

> In any case,that is just advanced astronomical forensics and unsuitable
> for particpants here who have yet to affirm basic,if
> spectacular,astronomical insights such as the easy to understand
> Copernican insight for axial and orbital motion.The Keplerian
> refinements, which are indeed intricate, is what Isaac used or
> exploited to destroy the simple Copernican reasoning and I can easily
> show how he did it.

Time to deliver then.

>> Are you able to determine the observed orbit of Saturn without using
>> Newtonian heliocentric geometry? Yes ?
>> Then prove it by producing an almanac of Saturn for the next 6 months
>> without using any published orbital elements, but purely based on the
>> last
>> 12 months observed positions of the planet and no mention of heliocentric
>> coordinates.
>>
>
> Look,the Newtonian view of what retrogrades are and how they are
> resolved is false and damaging as planetary motions around the Sun are
> seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth.

So you can't determine the orbit of Saturn as I proposed as an exercise to
demonstrate your view. Well what a surprise, this 'superior method' of yours
is worthless.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:11:29
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:

Maybe it takes a lunatic to be stupid enough to argue with one, not to
mention thinking he's being oh-so-smart in the process! Sigh.

PLONK

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 25 Sep 2006 13:09:50
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

On 25 Sep 2006 12:32:09 -0700, oriel36 wrote:

> You are probably the last in the forum to realise that a star returns
> to a meridian in 23 hours 56 min based on a system of 3 years of 365
> days and 1 year of 366 days.Somewhere in that head of yours you may
> possibly feel a twinge of recognition that you cannot justify the
> orbital motion of the Earth where there are alternate number of days
> every fourth year.
>
> You probably seen a few of the formely leading lights of
> sci.astro.magnification disappear to give you a hint that their time is
> over or at least they run the risk of highlighting their stupidity
> should they post on matters other than telescopes and imaging.
>
> Tell me how it feels to be 3 minutes 56 seconds wrong for the value
> assigned to the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees ?.This is not
> some mindnumbing detail but rather an explicit and obvious
> difference,so big that you are on the same intellectual and intuitive
> footing as the creationists.

So what else is on your mind? Anything?

Date: 26 Sep 2006 00:56:59
From: John Carruthers
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Date: 27 Sep 2006 11:49:02
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159212729.585895.280410@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > RMOLLISE wrote:
> >> HI:
> >>
> >> I'm curious, Oriole. Are you saying the sidereal day _is_ 23 hours and
> >> 56 minutes long...or that it _isn't_? What do those voices inside your
> >> head say?
> >>
> >
> > You are probably the last in the forum to realise that a star returns
> > to a meridian in 23 hours 56 min based on a system of 3 years of 365
> > days and 1 year of 366 days.
>
> You prefer to have the solstice progress through the calendar?

The calendrical convenience of a 1461 day cycle broken up into 3 years
of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days was and remains a gorgeous human
achievement,so old that the further minor adjustments amounts to 10
days in 1582.As there is an alternate number of days every 4th year,it
should give you a clue that there are two systems involved,the first
governs the creation of the equable 24 hour day and does not involve
the stellar background and secondly,the calendar extension which is
celestial sphere based but cannot be used to justify the Earth's axial
and orbital motions.

The mismatch of the calendar with the annual orbital motions which
required a 10 day correction should indicate that the human devised
principle for the equable 24 hour day ( Equation of Time correction)
and its wonderful extension where the Earth's annual orbit is
calculated using equable 24 hour days are two seperate systems.

The heliocentric adaption of the equable 24 hour day to axial rotation
at the pace of a clock hand at 24 hours/360 degrees isolates axial
rotation without the need for any external reference.Orbital motion of
the Earth was isolated by Copernicus in his resolution for the motion
of the planets around the Sun -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Nobody would have a problem recognising the faster Earth overtaking the
slower moving outer planets of Jupiter and Saturn thereby affirming the
planets orbit the Sun,on the same token there is never any need to
reference planetary motion to celestial sphere/calendrical geometry
otherwise the gorgeous insights of clocks/axial rotation and
retrogrades/heliocentricity would be destroyed.

The era of calendrical reform where 10 days was removed to bring the
calendar back in line with celestial sphere convenience demonstrates
that men can work together to correct things or adjust them to better
understanding of physical phenomena and data.A thorough astronomical
review is required to seperate the convenience of the calendar system
from actually justifying the Earth's motions using the calendar
system.It is not an easy task and made far more challenging in a
hostile enviroment which is based on the celestial sphere geometry of
the Ra/Dec system.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 00:39:26
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1159382942.492260.38450@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> The calendrical convenience of a 1461 day cycle broken up into 3 years
> of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days was and remains a gorgeous human
> achievement,so old that the further minor adjustments amounts to 10
> days in 1582.As there is an alternate number of days every 4th year,it
> should give you a clue that there are two systems involved,the first
> governs the creation of the equable 24 hour day

There is no natural 'equable' 24 hour day.

>and does not involve
> the stellar background and secondly,the calendar extension which is
> celestial sphere based but cannot be used to justify the Earth's axial
> and orbital motions.

You need to explain yourself better here.

> The mismatch of the calendar with the annual orbital motions which
> required a 10 day correction should indicate that the human devised
> principle for the equable 24 hour day ( Equation of Time correction)
> and its wonderful extension where the Earth's annual orbit is
> calculated using equable 24 hour days are two seperate systems.

Your prolixity militates against comprehensiblilty. You need to express your
argument more clearly - address the audience, not yourself.

> The heliocentric adaption of the equable 24 hour day to axial rotation
> at the pace of a clock hand at 24 hours/360 degrees isolates axial
> rotation without the need for any external reference.Orbital motion of
> the Earth was isolated by Copernicus in his resolution for the motion
> of the planets around the Sun -
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> Nobody would have a problem recognising the faster Earth overtaking the
> slower moving outer planets of Jupiter and Saturn thereby affirming the
> planets orbit the Sun,on the same token there is never any need to
> reference planetary motion to celestial sphere/calendrical geometry
> otherwise the gorgeous insights of clocks/axial rotation and
> retrogrades/heliocentricity would be destroyed.

What do you mean 'no need', if it aids comprehension and calculation the
need is self-evident. It does not rule out other means of expressing the
relationship - which seems to be your problem.

> The era of calendrical reform where 10 days was removed to bring the
> calendar back in line with celestial sphere convenience demonstrates
> that men can work together to correct things or adjust them to better
> understanding of physical phenomena and data.A thorough astronomical
> review is required to seperate the convenience of the calendar system
> from actually justifying the Earth's motions using the calendar
> system.It is not an easy task and made far more challenging in a
> hostile enviroment which is based on the celestial sphere geometry of
> the Ra/Dec system.

You really need to learn how to write more clearly. Try again. If it's
important to you, it's worth taking the effort to put your argument clearly.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 03:57:13
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160478316.004532.277930@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > OG wrote:
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160387375.844130.160280@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> >.There never was an external reference required to
> >> > explain axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour,just a subtle and
> >>
> >> When you say that no external reference is required, you are in fact
> >> saying
> >> that no external reference is possible.
> >
> > I do not say it,the original astronomical principles which we inherit
> > dictate that no external reference is required to justify axial
> > rotation and the correlation with the standard pace set by clocks.
>
> Fool
> How do you know when you are back in the same place without an external
> reference.

Fool indeed !,considering that you have the original and really
enjoyable article from 1669 before you explaining how to determine
yourLongitude location through the Equation of Time correction and
subsequently the correlation between the pace of clocks and axial
rotation at 4 minutes for each degree of rotation making 360
degree/24 hours and you just do not have the intuitive intelligence to
make sense of it.

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(rglh3y55x100x5nyim4p0k45)/app/home/main.asp?referrer=default

In the search field put ' Instructions Concerning Pendulum Watches' to
marvel at the innovation which makes determination of location,using
the principle of constant axial rotation possible.The efforts of people
like Maskelyne who tried to mesh the Equation of Time principles which
involve only the Earth and the Sun with celestial sphere geometry
would be quaint if it were not that these silly attempts to explain
everything through celestial sphere geometry have been dominant for so
long.Turn to page 950 in the 1669 article and it explains how they
determined local noon a dn local midnight through the use of the
position of the Sun against the horizen and then ,using a series of
steps including the Equation of Time correction,found their Longitude
position using the correlation betwen the pace of a clock at 4 minutes
for each degree of rotation.

The mistake people have been making since Flamsteed and Maskelyne
exists in how to treat the physical aspects of axial rotation with the
human principles which created the equable 24 hour day and subsequently
the equable pace of the hand of a clock in sync with the cycle of a
day.An easy way to approach this is to consider that our existence is
more or less bound to the daily cycle and this cycle is due to the
rotation of the Earth on its axis.The pre-Copernican astronomers
,knowing nothing of axial rotation,created the principle that even
though the total length of the day from noon to noon varied for each
cycle they could equalise this variation to a standard 24 hour cycle
with one 24 hour day elapsing into the next 24 hour day through
observing natural noon and applying minutes and seconds,equalise the
variations to 24 hour clock noon .One day elapses into the next 24
hour day and this still remains the basis of timekeeping for every
human being alive.

It is that gorgeous maneuver which the heliocentric astronomers made
that slots the pre-existing equable 24 hour day into the terrestrial
longitude system at 4 minutes for each degree of rotation that I am
presenting.Having isolated orbital motion using observence of the other
planets and their behavior explained by an orbitally moving Earth ,
they could believe that axial rotation caused the return of the Sun in
terms of the seperate axial rotational cycle.No reference was required
to justify the axial rotation as an independent motion and even if the
daily cycle was never 24 hours exactly they could create the
correlation between the pace of a clock hand and axial rotation at 24
hours/360 degrees.

So,justify celestial sphere geometry or the return of a star in 23
hours 56 min 04 sec using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth
and you sink into a cartoon world where time travel exists and space is
'warped',the complete opposite of astronomy ,its aims and its
methods.Perhaps I will remind a few here that this is about a shared
astronomical heritage and a magnificent one at that but it requires
intelligence to see beyond astronomy as an exercise in magnification
and nothing else.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 12:17:55
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160564233.598934.16040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> >> When you say that no external reference is required, you are in fact
>> >> saying
>> >> that no external reference is possible.
>> >
>> > I do not say it,the original astronomical principles which we inherit
>> > dictate that no external reference is required to justify axial
>> > rotation and the correlation with the standard pace set by clocks.
>>
>> Fool
>> How do you know when you are back in the same place without an external
>> reference.
>
> Fool indeed !,
<repeated from earlier posts >

You are clearly using the sun as an external reference. So how does that
square with the claim that 'no external reference is necessary' ?
So - what is the means of knowing when you have completed 360 degrees
WITHOUT an external reference?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 03:41:58
From: Sjouke Burry
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160564233.598934.16040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>>OG wrote:
>>
>>>>>When you say that no external reference is required, you are in fact
>>>>>saying
>>>>>that no external reference is possible.
>>>>
>>>>I do not say it,the original astronomical principles which we inherit
>>>>dictate that no external reference is required to justify axial
>>>>rotation and the correlation with the standard pace set by clocks.
>>>
>>>Fool
>>>How do you know when you are back in the same place without an external
>>>reference.
>>
>>Fool indeed !,
>
> <repeated from earlier posts>
>
> You are clearly using the sun as an external reference. So how does that
> square with the claim that 'no external reference is necessary' ?
> So - what is the means of knowing when you have completed 360 degrees
> WITHOUT an external reference?
>
>
>
A gyro.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 02:53:26
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnlll > wrote in message
news:452d9d66$0$9457$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160564233.598934.16040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>OG wrote:
>>>
>>>>How do you know when you are back in the same place without an external
>>>>reference.
>>
>> You are clearly using the sun as an external reference. So how does that
>> square with the claim that 'no external reference is necessary' ?
>> So - what is the means of knowing when you have completed 360 degrees
>> WITHOUT an external reference?

> A gyro.

Yes, thanks for that, but O36 is not so easily fooled by these 'real
science' tricks.

Date: 15 Oct 2006 04:20:02
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 2006 00:00:08 +0100, "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Greg, I must protest.
> >O36 clearly has some point he's trying to put over - obviously I think he's
> >incorrect in his view as currently stated; but as an incorrigible teacher I
> >need to find out why he believes what he does so that I can either direct
> >him to the flaws in his understanding and change his view, or (possibly)
> >develop a valid synthesis between both views so that we can move on.
>
> Gerald has been arguing this same thing for years. He is mentally ill.
> There is nothing you can teach here. Unless you develop some mental
> illness yourself, you'll never "understand" the point he's trying to
> make. Unless he gets some serious treatment, he'll never understand
> yours. You must have noticed by now that he never responds to what is
> said towards him. Like a machine, the same sentences just keep rolling
> out in response. There are autoresponders that show more intelligence.
>
> I'm not being glib here. Gerald is genuinely ill.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

Ignorance is not an illness,it is a condition of people incapable of
treating observations based on physical considerations and astronomy
,its methods and insights is entirely based on physical
considerations.The heliocentric astronomers based their observations
and their conclusions from an orbitally moving Earth ,not just
Copernicus but the later refinements of Kepler and Roemer are based on
observations from an orbitally moving Earth.

It is absolutely crucial to comprehend that you must,I repeat,must
resolve the observed plotted retrogrades of planets from a moving Earth
rather than jumping to the Sun as Newton did,to do as he did is to
destroy not just the careful working principlesand conclusion of the
great astronomers but also to unleash celestial sphere geometry that is
absolutely unhealthy and useless as anything other than an
observational convenience.

You talk of illness but so far I am the only person here who recognises
what the following motions represent,one half of splitting the motions
of the Earth into axial and orbital motions -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Eppur si muove

Date: 17 Oct 2006 23:59:35
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1161103436.920912.85440@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160992371.159088.132280@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > OG wrote:
> >> >> Oh don't be so bloody pompous .
> >> >> Yes, it is possible _in theory_ to determine the orbital motion from
> >> >> the
> >> >> observed movement of the planets (and it took the determination and
> >> >> genius
> >> >> of Kepler to perform the task for Mars and Earth on the basis of
> >> >> Tycho's
> >> >> measurements. It also took the best part of his professional life to
> >> >> come
> >> >> up
> >> >> with a handful of 'rules of thumb' regarding orbital motion) .
> >> >> The trouble with wishing to do it _in theory_ is that until Newton
> >> >> there
> >> >> was
> >> >> no _theory_.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Who gives a damn about 'theories' or how you choose to judge Copernicus
> >> > or Kepler,the Newtonian view of retrogrades and how they are resolved
> >> > is incorrect,damaging and are not supported by the careful work of the
> >> > heliocentric astronomers and more importantly,by contemporary imaging
> >> > of plotted positions and time lapse motion .
> >> >
> >>
> >> Once more you resort to bluff and bluster to hide the fact that you
> >> cannot
> >> justify your assertion that Newton's method is incorrect. If you can't
> >> support your argument you should accept it and shut up.
> >>
> >
> > Along with Kepler ,Galileo and the other early heliocentric
> > astronomers,I can afiirm the Copernican reasoning that planetary
> > motions are seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth.
>
> I'm sure Copenicus thanks you for supporting him - it's been touch and go
> for the last 450+ years.

The dominant Newtonian mutation to Copernican reasoning has
unfortunately existed for 300 years.That incorrect and damaging
mutation based on an incorrect statement regarding retorgrades and how
they are resolved can be simply wiped away with contemporary imaging ,
time lapse footage and the original texts of Copernicus,Kepler and
Galileo -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Your worthless Newtonian statements based on seeing retrogrades from
the Earth and jumping to the Sun to resolve appearances or that
planetary motions are only seen directly from the Sun lacks
imagination,style and content.

Turn your faces to the ground rather than look out on the great
astronomical cycles which make existence possible as befitting the dull
and the dour.I can look forward to seeing how the restored working
principles based on the Earth's motions generate productive avenues in
geology,climatology and many other areas while you circle your wagons
around a dead Newton and his ridiculous error.I would not wish that
fate on anyone but then again my concern is for future generations and
not those who have already lost their individuality and their intuitive
intelligence.

I do not insult you,you insult yourselves.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 09:55:17
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> OG wrote:
>
> Maybe it takes a lunatic to be stupid enough to argue with one, not to
> mention thinking he's being oh-so-smart in the process! Sigh.
>
> PLONK
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye

He will learn that dull and dour silence is the best defence mechansim
but he can also learn that there is nothing like individuality and
perseverance.

Copernicus supplied these gorgeous astronomical working principles and
many of these things need further refining such as chapter 11 of De
Revolutionibus,something far more crucial than even the Keplerian
modifications -

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html

As a follower of Christ and Christianity,I well understand that the
only possible enemy to faith is mediocrity and indeed it extends to all
other areas of existence such as astronomy.Having the technical ability
to sort through the tangled knot left by Flamsteed and Newton is no
great feat,what is a challenge is to get people interested again in the
initially intricate parts that go into astronomical reasoning without
telescopes.The mediocre talent of less careful men I can deal with but
I cannot deal with the supporters who propose mediocre working
principles as 'human achievements' and I assure you celestial sphere
geometry is all that and more.

You want him to shut up and he wants to continue with the other usual
defence stuff but I am indifferent to either.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 09:43:56
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160992371.159088.132280@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >> Oh don't be so bloody pompous .
> >> Yes, it is possible _in theory_ to determine the orbital motion from
> >> the
> >> observed movement of the planets (and it took the determination and
> >> genius
> >> of Kepler to perform the task for Mars and Earth on the basis of Tycho's
> >> measurements. It also took the best part of his professional life to come
> >> up
> >> with a handful of 'rules of thumb' regarding orbital motion) .
> >> The trouble with wishing to do it _in theory_ is that until Newton there
> >> was
> >> no _theory_.
> >>
> >
> > Who gives a damn about 'theories' or how you choose to judge Copernicus
> > or Kepler,the Newtonian view of retrogrades and how they are resolved
> > is incorrect,damaging and are not supported by the careful work of the
> > heliocentric astronomers and more importantly,by contemporary imaging
> > of plotted positions and time lapse motion .
> >
>
> Once more you resort to bluff and bluster to hide the fact that you cannot
> justify your assertion that Newton's method is incorrect. If you can't
> support your argument you should accept it and shut up.
>

Along with Kepler ,Galileo and the other early heliocentric
astronomers,I can afiirm the Copernican reasoning that planetary
motions are seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth.Here is direct
observations of that affirmation -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Whether you personally care to follow Newton's false and
counter-productive view of what retrogrades are and how they are is
entirely your own business but unfortunately,and like so many
others,influence children in an adverse way.

> >> Newton's genius allowed him to change the paradigm so that orbital motion
> >> was expressed in terms of position in relation to the Sun which gave the
> >> 'explanation' for Kepler's 3 laws. The proof of the power of Newton's
> >> position is that Kepler's 3 laws all emerged from Newton's 1 law.
> >>
> >
> > Newton was stupid astronomically but cunning in his methods,cunning
> > because what he did has no good ends. <idiocy>
>
> > In any case,that is just advanced astronomical forensics and unsuitable
> > for particpants here who have yet to affirm basic,if
> > spectacular,astronomical insights such as the easy to understand
> > Copernican insight for axial and orbital motion.The Keplerian
> > refinements, which are indeed intricate, is what Isaac used or
> > exploited to destroy the simple Copernican reasoning and I can easily
> > show how he did it.
>
> Time to deliver then.
>

The other poor guy is pleading with you to shut up while the personal
attack seems to be your flavor,either way,the correct way to approach
orbital motion in isolation is through the original Copernican
reasoning and the way to approach axial rotation in isolation,apart
from the daily cycle,is to admire and appreciate the great human
devised principles which correlate clocks ,terresyrial longitudes and
axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour precisely.

> >> Are you able to determine the observed orbit of Saturn without using
> >> Newtonian heliocentric geometry? Yes ?
> >> Then prove it by producing an almanac of Saturn for the next 6 months
> >> without using any published orbital elements, but purely based on the
> >> last
> >> 12 months observed positions of the planet and no mention of heliocentric
> >> coordinates.
> >>
> >
> > Look,the Newtonian view of what retrogrades are and how they are
> > resolved is false and damaging as planetary motions around the Sun are
> > seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth.
>
> So you can't determine the orbit of Saturn as I proposed as an exercise to
> demonstrate your view. Well what a surprise, this 'superior method' of yours
> is worthless.

It is not my method,there is only one way to approach retorgrades and
only one way to resolve them.If you cannot stomach the words of
Copernicus then it is not my fault or business but certainly there is
nothing left of the hideous Newtonian conceptions and the utter
stupidity that generated it.

Most will carry on as if nothing happened but some will actually know
how contemporary imaging techniques are a complimentary addition to the
original Copernican reasoning

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

" In this arrangement, therefore, we discover a marvelous symmetry of
the universe, and an established harmonious linkage between the motion
of the spheres and their size, such as can be found in no other way.
For this permits a not inattentive student to perceive why the
forward and backward arcs appear greater in Jupiter than in Saturn and
smaller than in Mars, and on the other hand greater in Venus than in
Mercury. This reversal in direction appears more frequently in Saturn
than in Jupiter, and also more rarely in Mars and Venus than in
Mercury..... All these phenomena proceed from the same cause, which is
in the earth's motion." COPERNICUS

Nobody here was taught what Copernicus actually did,their education
would have amounted to 'Copernicus proved the Earth went around the
Sun' and then the subject would quickly have moved to Newton and his
particular 'genius'.He was no genius,at least not in astronomical
matters and his maneuvering,if consistent,is entirely stupid,any other
judgement would be unfair to the careful work of the astronomers.

Now,I have left this open for those who care to view the original
reasoning allied with contemporary time lapse footage of Jupiter and
Saturn.At this important juncture,astronomy can go two different
directions and no doubt,having little talent for astronomy,you would
certainly like to keep up the pretense that everything is fine.

All the work of the great astronomers was waiting for was contemporary
imaging to help things along and I am afraid your well honed defences
cannot hold out against genuine progress.The affirmation is in the
imaging as well as the ability to highlight less careful treatments
such as Newton's.

Date: 18 Oct 2006 00:28:35
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1161103436.920912.85440@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160992371.159088.132280@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > OG wrote:
>> >> Oh don't be so bloody pompous .
>> >> Yes, it is possible _in theory_ to determine the orbital motion from
>> >> the
>> >> observed movement of the planets (and it took the determination and
>> >> genius
>> >> of Kepler to perform the task for Mars and Earth on the basis of
>> >> Tycho's
>> >> measurements. It also took the best part of his professional life to
>> >> come
>> >> up
>> >> with a handful of 'rules of thumb' regarding orbital motion) .
>> >> The trouble with wishing to do it _in theory_ is that until Newton
>> >> there
>> >> was
>> >> no _theory_.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Who gives a damn about 'theories' or how you choose to judge Copernicus
>> > or Kepler,the Newtonian view of retrogrades and how they are resolved
>> > is incorrect,damaging and are not supported by the careful work of the
>> > heliocentric astronomers and more importantly,by contemporary imaging
>> > of plotted positions and time lapse motion .
>> >
>>
>> Once more you resort to bluff and bluster to hide the fact that you
>> cannot
>> justify your assertion that Newton's method is incorrect. If you can't
>> support your argument you should accept it and shut up.
>>
>
> Along with Kepler ,Galileo and the other early heliocentric
> astronomers,I can afiirm the Copernican reasoning that planetary
> motions are seen directly from an orbitally moving Earth.

I'm sure Copenicus thanks you for supporting him - it's been touch and go
for the last 450+ years.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 07:13:58
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159382942.492260.38450@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > The calendrical convenience of a 1461 day cycle broken up into 3 years
> > of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days was and remains a gorgeous human
> > achievement,so old that the further minor adjustments amounts to 10
> > days in 1582.As there is an alternate number of days every 4th year,it
> > should give you a clue that there are two systems involved,the first
> > governs the creation of the equable 24 hour day
>
> There is no natural 'equable' 24 hour day.
>

Unfortunately celestial sphere geometers believe that there is a
reference for the equable 24 hour day which is why justifying the
return of a star to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04 seconds
using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth is a really dumb idea.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif

> >and does not involve
> > the stellar background and secondly,the calendar extension which is
> > celestial sphere based but cannot be used to justify the Earth's axial
> > and orbital motions.
>
> You need to explain yourself better here.
>

No,somebody else needs to explain this shared astronomical heritage
better than I can and especially the two step process which governs the
creation of the 24 hour day through the return of the Sun to noon and
its heliocentric adaption to axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and
24 hours through 360 degrees of rotation.

My astronomical ancestors observed that the return of the Sun to noon
and subsequently the total length of the day was unequal.They applied
the Equation of Time correction to equalise the natural variations to a
constant 24 hour day and thereby created the pragmatic feature of
having one 24 hour day elapse into the next 24 hour day through noon.

Not long after it was discovered in 1453 that the Earth had an
independent axial rotation,the heliocentric astronomers adapted the
principle that one 24 hour day elapses seamlessly into the next 24 hour
day and superimposed it on the principle that the Earth's axial
rotation is constant.They did not need to reference this principle off
anything external for the original Copernican insight had already
isolated orbital motion in order to explain apparent retorgrades.

> > The mismatch of the calendar with the annual orbital motions which
> > required a 10 day correction should indicate that the human devised
> > principle for the equable 24 hour day ( Equation of Time correction)
> > and its wonderful extension where the Earth's annual orbit is
> > calculated using equable 24 hour days are two seperate systems.
>
> Your prolixity militates against comprehensiblilty. You need to express your
> argument more clearly - address the audience, not yourself.
>

The matter is too important to drop and far too important to take
personal offense over.If you can justify the return of a star to your
location using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth you are
adhering to a view which is counter-productive on all counts.

The audience can expect to keep the convenience of the Ra/Dec system
but not to justify it using the heliocentric system as it is based on 3
years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.

> > The heliocentric adaption of the equable 24 hour day to axial rotation
> > at the pace of a clock hand at 24 hours/360 degrees isolates axial
> > rotation without the need for any external reference.Orbital motion of
> > the Earth was isolated by Copernicus in his resolution for the motion
> > of the planets around the Sun -
> >
> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >
> > Nobody would have a problem recognising the faster Earth overtaking the
> > slower moving outer planets of Jupiter and Saturn thereby affirming the
> > planets orbit the Sun,on the same token there is never any need to
> > reference planetary motion to celestial sphere/calendrical geometry
> > otherwise the gorgeous insights of clocks/axial rotation and
> > retrogrades/heliocentricity would be destroyed.
>
> What do you mean 'no need', if it aids comprehension and calculation the
> need is self-evident. It does not rule out other means of expressing the
> relationship - which seems to be your problem.
>
> > The era of calendrical reform where 10 days was removed to bring the
> > calendar back in line with celestial sphere convenience demonstrates
> > that men can work together to correct things or adjust them to better
> > understanding of physical phenomena and data.A thorough astronomical
> > review is required to seperate the convenience of the calendar system
> > from actually justifying the Earth's motions using the calendar
> > system.It is not an easy task and made far more challenging in a
> > hostile enviroment which is based on the celestial sphere geometry of
> > the Ra/Dec system.
>
> You really need to learn how to write more clearly. Try again. If it's
> important to you, it's worth taking the effort to put your argument clearly.

Sounding perfectly reasonable while being perfectly wrong can act as a
wonderful defence however if a little effort is made to explain the two
step process which correlates the clocks and axial rotation,astronomy
can get back to something more than an exercise in magnification.

The counter-productive Newtonian conceptual mutations based on
celestial; sphere geometry are no match for the original insights
which isolate axial and orbital motions for their respective
purposes.The optical astronomer has no need to worry about the loss of
the calendrical convenience for observing and even its use for
determining celestial events however it cannot be used for heliocentric
modelling where the Earth's axial and orbital motions are required.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 05:26:41
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159382942.492260.38450@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > The calendrical convenience of a 1461 day cycle broken up into 3 years
> > of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days was and remains a gorgeous human
> > achievement,so old that the further minor adjustments amounts to 10
> > days in 1582.As there is an alternate number of days every 4th year,it
> > should give you a clue that there are two systems involved,the first
> > governs the creation of the equable 24 hour day
>
> There is no natural 'equable' 24 hour day.
>

I am delighted that you agree but it does not stop celestial sphere
geometers from referencing axial rotation to the Sun in 24 hours in
order to justify the return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 min
04 sec -

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif

There is no external reference for 24 hours and the axial rotation of
the Earth however there is an exquisite two step process which governs
the creation of the 24 hour day through the return of the Sun to noon
and the application of the Equation of Time correction.The genius was
the step taken by heliocentric astronomers in adapting the human
devised principle of the 24 hour day to the heliocentric assumption
that axial rotation is an independent and constant motion.No external
references were and are required to correlate the pace of a hand of a
clock with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours /360
degrees in total.

> >and does not involve
> > the stellar background and secondly,the calendar extension which is
> > celestial sphere based but cannot be used to justify the Earth's axial
> > and orbital motions.
>
> You need to explain yourself better here.
>

The return of a star to your geographical location in 23 hours 56 min
04 sec cannot,I repeat,cannot be explained using the axial and orbital
motions of the Earth.This is about as clear as it gets.

> > The mismatch of the calendar with the annual orbital motions which
> > required a 10 day correction should indicate that the human devised
> > principle for the equable 24 hour day ( Equation of Time correction)
> > and its wonderful extension where the Earth's annual orbit is
> > calculated using equable 24 hour days are two seperate systems.
>
> Your prolixity militates against comprehensiblilty. You need to express your
> argument more clearly - address the audience, not yourself.
>

I do not mind these pseudo-authorative imperatives,it normally takes
one or two posts for them to show up but ultimately they are defensive
things which highlight the lack of technical competence in these
matters.

You are being educated here in a system you presently know little about
and it is well worth the effort to appreciate how the astronomical
correction which governs the creation of the 24 hour day and its
seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day.It
also provides the basis for keeping the pace of a clock in sync with
axial rotation of `15 degrees per hour precisely.

I have been priviledged to witness how my astronomical ancestors
created the heliocentric adaption of the very old Equation of Time
system and would wish to see other astronomers come to admire it.

> > The heliocentric adaption of the equable 24 hour day to axial rotation
> > at the pace of a clock hand at 24 hours/360 degrees isolates axial
> > rotation without the need for any external reference.Orbital motion of
> > the Earth was isolated by Copernicus in his resolution for the motion
> > of the planets around the Sun -
> >
> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >
> > Nobody would have a problem recognising the faster Earth overtaking the
> > slower moving outer planets of Jupiter and Saturn thereby affirming the
> > planets orbit the Sun,on the same token there is never any need to
> > reference planetary motion to celestial sphere/calendrical geometry
> > otherwise the gorgeous insights of clocks/axial rotation and
> > retrogrades/heliocentricity would be destroyed.
>
> What do you mean 'no need', if it aids comprehension and calculation the
> need is self-evident. It does not rule out other means of expressing the
> relationship - which seems to be your problem.
>

The Copernican reasoning for the orbital motion of the Earth and the
other planets around the Sun was waiting for contemporary aids such as
time lapse footage.The motions of Saturn and Jupiter are explained by
a faster moving Earth thereby planetary heliocentric motion is observed
directly from Earth.I have the luxury of clarifying this with the
images which reference the Earth's motions against the other planets -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

The stellar background which Newton introduced into heliocentric
reasoning does not aid appreciation of the images above and is
counter-productive to the point of being destructive -

"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

The astronomical principles which keep axial rotation constant at 15
degrees per hour precisely also keep orbital motion seperate for the
purpose of explaining the observed motion of the planets.Newton's
attempt was to try and fit orbital geometry into the Ra/Dec system
which is why it can be now highlighted as the obvious and destructive
error in assigning the value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec for axial
rotation and all the awful consequences spilling out from that.

> > The era of calendrical reform where 10 days was removed to bring the
> > calendar back in line with celestial sphere convenience demonstrates
> > that men can work together to correct things or adjust them to better
> > understanding of physical phenomena and data.A thorough astronomical
> > review is required to seperate the convenience of the calendar system
> > from actually justifying the Earth's motions using the calendar
> > system.It is not an easy task and made far more challenging in a
> > hostile enviroment which is based on the celestial sphere geometry of
> > the Ra/Dec system.
>
> You really need to learn how to write more clearly. Try again. If it's
> important to you, it's worth taking the effort to put your argument clearly.

Not at all,you have the pleasure of trying to explain to others here
how you plan to fit a constant .986 degree orbital displacement into an
elliptical framework and still get Keplerian geometry -

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif

When you develop a distinct antipathy in seeing the Earth travel faster
around its orbital circumference the further it exists in distance from
the Sun and in direct conflict with Keplerian geometry then let me know.

Date: 30 Sep 2006 01:47:07
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1159446401.883857.161550@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159382942.492260.38450@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > The calendrical convenience of a 1461 day cycle broken up into 3 years
>> > of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days was and remains a gorgeous human
>> > achievement,so old that the further minor adjustments amounts to 10
>> > days in 1582.As there is an alternate number of days every 4th year,it
>> > should give you a clue that there are two systems involved,the first
>> > governs the creation of the equable 24 hour day
>>
>> There is no natural 'equable' 24 hour day.
>>
>
> I am delighted that you agree

So why do YOU talk about the 'equitable 24hd' as though it exists?

> but it does not stop celestial sphere
> geometers from referencing axial rotation to the Sun in 24 hours in
> order to justify the return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 min
> 04 sec -

YOU talk about the 'equitable 24 hours'. Proper astronomers know that the
measurable constant is the 23.56.04 stellar rotation.

> http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif
>
> There is no external reference for 24 hours

Correct. The exact 24 hour 'solar day' is an artificial construct.

>and the axial rotation of
> the Earth however there is an exquisite two step process which governs
> the creation of the 24 hour day through the return of the Sun to noon
> and the application of the Equation of Time correction.The genius was
> the step taken by heliocentric astronomers in adapting the human
> devised principle of the 24 hour day to the heliocentric assumption
> that axial rotation is an independent and constant motion.No external
> references were and are required to correlate the pace of a hand of a
> clock with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours /360
> degrees in total.
>

You miss that that YOU have it wrong here.
Your 'hand of a clock' 24 hour clockwork clock is based on an AVERAGE 24
hours Solar meridiem. But, as you acknowledge in the url you linked to, if
it is 24 hours it isn't 360 degrees and vice versa. The full 24 hours
rotation of the Earth is 360.986 degrees as you point out.

>
>> >and does not involve
>> > the stellar background and secondly,the calendar extension which is
>> > celestial sphere based but cannot be used to justify the Earth's axial
>> > and orbital motions.
>>
>> You need to explain yourself better here.
>>
>
> The return of a star to your geographical location in 23 hours 56 min
> 04 sec cannot,I repeat,cannot be explained using the axial and orbital
> motions of the Earth.This is about as clear as it gets.
>

It is explained using the axial rotation. No problem there.

>
>> > The mismatch of the calendar with the annual orbital motions which
>> > required a 10 day correction should indicate that the human devised
>> > principle for the equable 24 hour day ( Equation of Time correction)
>> > and its wonderful extension where the Earth's annual orbit is
>> > calculated using equable 24 hour days are two seperate systems.
>>
>> Your prolixity militates against comprehensiblilty. You need to express
>> your
>> argument more clearly - address the audience, not yourself.
>>
>
> I do not mind these pseudo-authorative imperatives,it normally takes
> one or two posts for them to show up but ultimately they are defensive
> things which highlight the lack of technical competence in these
> matters.

If you can't explain yourself, don't blame anyone else than yourself.

> You are being educated here in a system you presently know little about
> and it is well worth the effort to appreciate how the astronomical
> correction which governs the creation of the 24 hour day and its
> seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day.It
> also provides the basis for keeping the pace of a clock in sync with
> axial rotation of `15 degrees per hour precisely.
> I have been priviledged to witness how my astronomical ancestors
> created the heliocentric adaption of the very old Equation of Time
> system and would wish to see other astronomers come to admire it.

You are a fool if you think the Equation Of Time' is 'very old'. - What is
the earliest reference to it that YOU can find?

>> > The heliocentric adaption of the equable 24 hour day to axial rotation
>> > at the pace of a clock hand at 24 hours/360 degrees isolates axial
>> > rotation without the need for any external reference.Orbital motion of
>> > the Earth was isolated by Copernicus in his resolution for the motion
>> > of the planets around the Sun -
>> >
>> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>> >
>> > Nobody would have a problem recognising the faster Earth overtaking the
>> > slower moving outer planets of Jupiter and Saturn thereby affirming the
>> > planets orbit the Sun,on the same token there is never any need to
>> > reference planetary motion to celestial sphere/calendrical geometry
>> > otherwise the gorgeous insights of clocks/axial rotation and
>> > retrogrades/heliocentricity would be destroyed.
>>
>> What do you mean 'no need', if it aids comprehension and calculation the
>> need is self-evident. It does not rule out other means of expressing the
>> relationship - which seems to be your problem.
>>
>
> The Copernican reasoning for the orbital motion of the Earth and the
> other planets around the Sun was waiting for contemporary aids such as
> time lapse footage.The motions of Saturn and Jupiter are explained by
> a faster moving Earth thereby planetary heliocentric motion is observed
> directly from Earth.I have the luxury of clarifying this with the
> images which reference the Earth's motions against the other planets -
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> The stellar background which Newton introduced into heliocentric
> reasoning does not aid appreciation of the images above and is
> counter-productive to the point of being destructive -
>
> "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
>
> The astronomical principles which keep axial rotation constant at 15
> degrees per hour precisely also keep orbital motion seperate for the
> purpose of explaining the observed motion of the planets.Newton's
> attempt was to try and fit orbital geometry into the Ra/Dec system
> which is why it can be now highlighted as the obvious and destructive
> error in assigning the value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec for axial
> rotation and all the awful consequences spilling out from that.
>
>
>
>
>> > The era of calendrical reform where 10 days was removed to bring the
>> > calendar back in line with celestial sphere convenience demonstrates
>> > that men can work together to correct things or adjust them to better
>> > understanding of physical phenomena and data.A thorough astronomical
>> > review is required to seperate the convenience of the calendar system
>> > from actually justifying the Earth's motions using the calendar
>> > system.It is not an easy task and made far more challenging in a
>> > hostile enviroment which is based on the celestial sphere geometry of
>> > the Ra/Dec system.
>>
>> You really need to learn how to write more clearly. Try again. If it's
>> important to you, it's worth taking the effort to put your argument
>> clearly.
>
> Not at all,you have the pleasure of trying to explain to others here
> how you plan to fit a constant .986 degree orbital displacement into an
> elliptical framework and still get Keplerian geometry -

I don't have any problem - because I don't foolishly think that a _constant_
0.986 degree displacement exists. I know that the Equation of Time means
that the difference between Universal Time and Mean Solar Time isn't
_constant_.

> When you develop a distinct antipathy in seeing the Earth travel faster
> around its orbital circumference the further it exists in distance from
> the Sun and in direct conflict with Keplerian geometry then let me know.

Once again, your linguistic ability lets you down. Keep it simple and you
may be able to successfully say what you m
mean. I think (but you could be wrong) that you are proposing a state of
believing that "Earth travels faster around it's circumference when further
than the Sun" Do you think I currently think that I believe the above
stated relationship ? WHAT ON EARTH HAVE I SAID TO GIVE YOU SUCH AN
IMPRESSION ?

Date: 11 Oct 2006 09:49:58
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160564233.598934.16040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >> >> When you say that no external reference is required, you are in fact
> >> >> saying
> >> >> that no external reference is possible.
> >> >
> >> > I do not say it,the original astronomical principles which we inherit
> >> > dictate that no external reference is required to justify axial
> >> > rotation and the correlation with the standard pace set by clocks.
> >>
> >> Fool
> >> How do you know when you are back in the same place without an external
> >> reference.
> >
> > Fool indeed !,
> <repeated from earlier posts>
>
> You are clearly using the sun as an external reference. So how does that
> square with the claim that 'no external reference is necessary' ?
> So - what is the means of knowing when you have completed 360 degrees
> WITHOUT an external reference?

The Sun at noon is the reference for 24 hour clock noon after the
Equation of Time is applied,every single article ever written
determines that it also facilitates how one 24 hour day elapses into
the next 24 hour day.This is a bare principle devised by pre-Copernican
astronomers who had no practical idea that the Earth had axial
rotation and orbital motion.

When you discover that the daily cycle is generated by the axial
rotation of the Earth,what you do is graft in the human devised
principle which created the equable 24 hour day,split the Earth
longitudinally into 24 divisions of 15 degrees and mesh the human
devised principle of equable hours with constant axial rotation.You can
split the Earth longitudinally into 360 divisions representing 4
minutes of clock time but this is how clocks correlate astronomically
with axial rotation always at 24 hours/360 degrees.

The problem is that nobody has ever been taught correctly how
Copernicus isolated orbital motion to resolve the observed motion of
the outer planets and treated axial rotation as a seperate motion.Once
a person sees the faster orbital motion of the Earth overtaking the
slower forward orbital motions of Jupiter and Saturn they can then
consider the principles which isolate axial rotation -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Once you negate axial rotation and allow the orbital motion of the
Earth to resolve the observed motions of the planets you can then turn
to considering axial rotation alone and how it generates the daily
cycle .No appeal to the stellar background and celestial sphere
geometry is required and the subtle maneuver which transfers the
pre-Copernican principles of the equable 24 hour day to axial rotation
at 15 degrees per hour is waiting for those who make the effort and it
is a marvel and joy to behold.

Do you really wish to justify axial rotation by way of celestial sphere
geometry and the return of a star to your location ?.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 17:58:15
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160585398.779677.154660@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160564233.598934.16040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > OG wrote:
>> >> >> When you say that no external reference is required, you are in
>> >> >> fact
>> >> >> saying
>> >> >> that no external reference is possible.
>> >> >
>> >> > I do not say it,the original astronomical principles which we
>> >> > inherit
>> >> > dictate that no external reference is required to justify axial
>> >> > rotation and the correlation with the standard pace set by clocks.
>> >>
>> >> Fool
>> >> How do you know when you are back in the same place without an
>> >> external
>> >> reference.
>> >
>> > Fool indeed !,
>> <repeated from earlier posts>
>>
>> You are clearly using the sun as an external reference. So how does that
>> square with the claim that 'no external reference is necessary' ?
>> So - what is the means of knowing when you have completed 360 degrees
>> WITHOUT an external reference?
>
>
> The Sun at noon is the reference for 24 hour clock noon after the
> Equation of Time is applied,every single article ever written
> determines that it also facilitates how one 24 hour day elapses into
> the next 24 hour day.

So you accept that you were wrong when you said that no external reference
is required.

And since you need to know the time of year to determine what amount of
correction is needed to apply as the Equation of Time you were doubly wrong.
You need the Sun to get a more or less wrong answer, and you need a further
exteral reference (the ecliptic) to get the figre right.

>This is a bare principle devised by pre-Copernican
> astronomers who had no practical idea that the Earth had axial
> rotation and orbital motion.
>
> Do you really wish to justify axial rotation by way of celestial sphere
> geometry and the return of a star to your location ?.
>

What do you mean by 'justlfy' in that sentence? (be brief and stick to the
point)

Date: 30 Sep 2006 06:38:00
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159446401.883857.161550@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > OG wrote:
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1159382942.492260.38450@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > The calendrical convenience of a 1461 day cycle broken up into 3 years
> >> > of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days was and remains a gorgeous human
> >> > achievement,so old that the further minor adjustments amounts to 10
> >> > days in 1582.As there is an alternate number of days every 4th year,it
> >> > should give you a clue that there are two systems involved,the first
> >> > governs the creation of the equable 24 hour day
> >>
> >> There is no natural 'equable' 24 hour day.
> >>
> >
> > I am delighted that you agree
>
> So why do YOU talk about the 'equitable 24hd' as though it exists?
>

You justify the return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04 secs by
falsely assuming that a location on Earth rotates to the face the
noon Sun in 24 hours exactly -

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG

I have explained to you that the creation of the 24 hour day is a human
devised principle based on the return of the Sun to noon and an
Equation of Time correction applied to equalise the variations in the
total length of the natural unequal day to the 24 hour day.Not only
does the Equation of Time govern the creation of the 24 hour day,it
also allows one 24 hour day to elapse seamlessly into the next 24 hour
day.These two facts are crucial for the heliocentric adaption to axial
rotation at 4 minutes clock time for each degree of rotation making 24
hours/360 degrees in total.

It may be that the subtle two step process which divides the
pre-Copernican principles for the 24 hour day from the heliocentric
adaption escapes you but I do not see it as difficult at all and easy
enough to appreciate with a bit of familiarity.

> > but it does not stop celestial sphere
> > geometers from referencing axial rotation to the Sun in 24 hours in
> > order to justify the return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 min
> > 04 sec -
>
> YOU talk about the 'equitable 24 hours'. Proper astronomers know that the
> measurable constant is the 23.56.04 stellar rotation.
>

The equable 24 hour day is a product of careful reasoning,the
justification of the return of a star to a meridian using the axial
rotation of the Earth is careless and false.

Celestial sphere geometers work off a system based on 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days.A star returns in 23 hours minutes 56
minutes regardless of how many days are in a year and this should
indicate to intelligent people that it is not a good way to justify the
axial and orbital motions of the Earth.

>
> > http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif
> >
> > There is no external reference for 24 hours
>
> Correct. The exact 24 hour 'solar day' is an artificial construct.
>

An additional problem and irritation is that this touchy/feely
dithering with 'solar day' makes it almost impossible to have a decent
conversation.The natural daily cycle is unequal whereas brilliant and
careful men created a system which equalised the variations to a 24
hour day.Once created,it became possible to create the calendar system
based on the annual motion of the Earth with a leap correction every
4th year and when the axial rotation of the Earth was discovered as an
independent motion the system was adapted to correlate the pace of a
hand of a clock in sync with this rotation at 4 minutes for each
degree of rotation.

> >and the axial rotation of
> > the Earth however there is an exquisite two step process which governs
> > the creation of the 24 hour day through the return of the Sun to noon
> > and the application of the Equation of Time correction.The genius was
> > the step taken by heliocentric astronomers in adapting the human
> > devised principle of the 24 hour day to the heliocentric assumption
> > that axial rotation is an independent and constant motion.No external
> > references were and are required to correlate the pace of a hand of a
> > clock with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours /360
> > degrees in total.
> >
>
> You miss that that YOU have it wrong here.
> Your 'hand of a clock' 24 hour clockwork clock is based on an AVERAGE 24
> hours Solar meridiem. But, as you acknowledge in the url you linked to, if
> it is 24 hours it isn't 360 degrees and vice versa. The full 24 hours
> rotation of the Earth is 360.986 degrees as you point out.
>

The correlation between clocks and axial rotation in 24 hours/360
degrees precisely do not involve any reference to celestial sphere
geometry,it is simply a wonderful and spectacular human jewel which
has roots in pre-Copernican and heliocentric astronomy and anyone can
enjoy the subtle reasoning with just a little familiarity

I will add that much of the difficulties arise from mistaking the total
length of a day using the return of the Sun to noon with the entirely
different matter of daylight/darkness asymmetry.The correlation
between axial rotation and the pace of a clock hand at 15 degrees per
hour did not require knowledge of Keplerian geometry therefore there is
no need to assign a cause for the natural inequality in the total
length of each daily cycle and unfortunately celestial sphere geometers
assign a variable axial tilt to the Sun to the Equation of Time,In any
case,it is easier just to appreciate that the clock/axial rotation
correlation requires no knowledge of Keplerian orbital geometry,it only
requires knowledge that the total length of the daily cyckle was
observed to be unequal hence the neccessity of the Equation of Time to
create the 24 hour day.

> >
> >> >and does not involve
> >> > the stellar background and secondly,the calendar extension which is
> >> > celestial sphere based but cannot be used to justify the Earth's axial
> >> > and orbital motions.
> >>
> >> You need to explain yourself better here.
> >>
> >
> > The return of a star to your geographical location in 23 hours 56 min
> > 04 sec cannot,I repeat,cannot be explained using the axial and orbital
> > motions of the Earth.This is about as clear as it gets.
> >
>
> It is explained using the axial rotation. No problem there.
>
> >
> >> > The mismatch of the calendar with the annual orbital motions which
> >> > required a 10 day correction should indicate that the human devised
> >> > principle for the equable 24 hour day ( Equation of Time correction)
> >> > and its wonderful extension where the Earth's annual orbit is
> >> > calculated using equable 24 hour days are two seperate systems.
> >>
> >> Your prolixity militates against comprehensiblilty. You need to express
> >> your
> >> argument more clearly - address the audience, not yourself.
> >>
> >
> > I do not mind these pseudo-authorative imperatives,it normally takes
> > one or two posts for them to show up but ultimately they are defensive
> > things which highlight the lack of technical competence in these
> > matters.
>
> If you can't explain yourself, don't blame anyone else than yourself.
>
>
> > You are being educated here in a system you presently know little about
> > and it is well worth the effort to appreciate how the astronomical
> > correction which governs the creation of the 24 hour day and its
> > seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day.It
> > also provides the basis for keeping the pace of a clock in sync with
> > axial rotation of `15 degrees per hour precisely.
> > I have been priviledged to witness how my astronomical ancestors
> > created the heliocentric adaption of the very old Equation of Time
> > system and would wish to see other astronomers come to admire it.
>
> You are a fool if you think the Equation Of Time' is 'very old'. - What is
> the earliest reference to it that YOU can find?
>

You need to create the equable 24 hour day first to create the
calendar system with its leap correction,it that realisation does not
strike you as old I do not know what would.You will have better luck
finding out who invented the wheel or divided the circle into 360
degrees than knowing who first equalised the day .Watching my
astronomical ancestors at work in creating two systems is an incredible
experience,watching celestial sphere geometers screw it all up is a
dismal experience.

> >> > The heliocentric adaption of the equable 24 hour day to axial rotation
> >> > at the pace of a clock hand at 24 hours/360 degrees isolates axial
> >> > rotation without the need for any external reference.Orbital motion of
> >> > the Earth was isolated by Copernicus in his resolution for the motion
> >> > of the planets around the Sun -
> >> >
> >> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >> >
> >> > Nobody would have a problem recognising the faster Earth overtaking the
> >> > slower moving outer planets of Jupiter and Saturn thereby affirming the
> >> > planets orbit the Sun,on the same token there is never any need to
> >> > reference planetary motion to celestial sphere/calendrical geometry
> >> > otherwise the gorgeous insights of clocks/axial rotation and
> >> > retrogrades/heliocentricity would be destroyed.
> >>
> >> What do you mean 'no need', if it aids comprehension and calculation the
> >> need is self-evident. It does not rule out other means of expressing the
> >> relationship - which seems to be your problem.
> >>
> >
> > The Copernican reasoning for the orbital motion of the Earth and the
> > other planets around the Sun was waiting for contemporary aids such as
> > time lapse footage.The motions of Saturn and Jupiter are explained by
> > a faster moving Earth thereby planetary heliocentric motion is observed
> > directly from Earth.I have the luxury of clarifying this with the
> > images which reference the Earth's motions against the other planets -
> >
> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >
> > The stellar background which Newton introduced into heliocentric
> > reasoning does not aid appreciation of the images above and is
> > counter-productive to the point of being destructive -
> >
> > "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
> >
> > The astronomical principles which keep axial rotation constant at 15
> > degrees per hour precisely also keep orbital motion seperate for the
> > purpose of explaining the observed motion of the planets.Newton's
> > attempt was to try and fit orbital geometry into the Ra/Dec system
> > which is why it can be now highlighted as the obvious and destructive
> > error in assigning the value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec for axial
> > rotation and all the awful consequences spilling out from that.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> > The era of calendrical reform where 10 days was removed to bring the
> >> > calendar back in line with celestial sphere convenience demonstrates
> >> > that men can work together to correct things or adjust them to better
> >> > understanding of physical phenomena and data.A thorough astronomical
> >> > review is required to seperate the convenience of the calendar system
> >> > from actually justifying the Earth's motions using the calendar
> >> > system.It is not an easy task and made far more challenging in a
> >> > hostile enviroment which is based on the celestial sphere geometry of
> >> > the Ra/Dec system.
> >>
> >> You really need to learn how to write more clearly. Try again. If it's
> >> important to you, it's worth taking the effort to put your argument
> >> clearly.
> >
> > Not at all,you have the pleasure of trying to explain to others here
> > how you plan to fit a constant .986 degree orbital displacement into an
> > elliptical framework and still get Keplerian geometry -
>
>
> I don't have any problem - because I don't foolishly think that a _constant_
> 0.986 degree displacement exists. I know that the Equation of Time means
> that the difference between Universal Time and Mean Solar Time isn't
> _constant_.
>

You do not have any choice in the matter, celestial sphere geometers
borrow 3 min 56 sec from axial rotation and dump it into a .986 degree
orbital displacement -

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG

Like children left to run amok in an exquiste timekeeping system,it
takes very little to see where that .986 degree displacement comes from
-

360 degrees = 24 hours
1 degree = 4 minutes
.986 degree = 3 minutes 56 sec

24 hours minus 3 minutes 56 seconds = 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.

God forbid that you will ever know the experience of seeing something
as crude as that become dominant and accepted as a fact.There is no
burden attached to appreciating the original Equation of Time system
which gioverns the creation of the 24 hour day and its heliocentric
adaption to axial rotation,the real burden is the sheer dominance of
the false and brute sidereal justification.

> > When you develop a distinct antipathy in seeing the Earth travel faster
> > around its orbital circumference the further it exists in distance from
> > the Sun and in direct conflict with Keplerian geometry then let me know.
>
> Once again, your linguistic ability lets you down. Keep it simple and you
> may be able to successfully say what you m
> mean. I think (but you could be wrong) that you are proposing a state of
> believing that "Earth travels faster around it's circumference when further
> than the Sun" Do you think I currently think that I believe the above
> stated relationship ? WHAT ON EARTH HAVE I SAID TO GIVE YOU SUCH AN
> IMPRESSION ?

Humanity is discovering just how old their astronomical heritage really
is and how enjoyable it is to appreciate how older civilisations left
their knowledge of the great astronomical cycles that govern physical
existence,Stonehenge and Newgrange being examples.

Astrophotographers can still have the convenience of celestial sphere
geometry without pushing for a heliocentric justification for it or
indeed to start appreciating the original heliocentric insights based
on axial rotation in isolation for the 24 hour clock system and orbital
motion in isolation for the resolution of plotted retrogrades.

Date: 30 Sep 2006 22:07:07
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1159623480.331551.197660@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159446401.883857.161550@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > OG wrote:
>> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1159382942.492260.38450@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > The calendrical convenience of a 1461 day cycle broken up into 3
>> >> > years
>> >> > of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days was and remains a gorgeous human
>> >> > achievement,so old that the further minor adjustments amounts to 10
>> >> > days in 1582.As there is an alternate number of days every 4th
>> >> > year,it
>> >> > should give you a clue that there are two systems involved,the first
>> >> > governs the creation of the equable 24 hour day
>> >>
>> >> There is no natural 'equable' 24 hour day.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I am delighted that you agree
>>
>> So why do YOU talk about the 'equitable 24hd' as though it exists?
>>
>
> You justify the return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04 secs by
> falsely assuming that a location on Earth rotates to the face the
> noon Sun in 24 hours exactly -

Oh I see. You completely fail to understand what astronomers think,
therefore you think they are mistaken.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 10:45:15
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160585398.779677.154660@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160564233.598934.16040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > OG wrote:
> >> >> >> When you say that no external reference is required, you are in
> >> >> >> fact
> >> >> >> saying
> >> >> >> that no external reference is possible.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I do not say it,the original astronomical principles which we
> >> >> > inherit
> >> >> > dictate that no external reference is required to justify axial
> >> >> > rotation and the correlation with the standard pace set by clocks.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fool
> >> >> How do you know when you are back in the same place without an
> >> >> external
> >> >> reference.
> >> >
> >> > Fool indeed !,
> >> <repeated from earlier posts>
> >>
> >> You are clearly using the sun as an external reference. So how does that
> >> square with the claim that 'no external reference is necessary' ?
> >> So - what is the means of knowing when you have completed 360 degrees
> >> WITHOUT an external reference?
> >
> >
> > The Sun at noon is the reference for 24 hour clock noon after the
> > Equation of Time is applied,every single article ever written
> > determines that it also facilitates how one 24 hour day elapses into
> > the next 24 hour day.
>
> So you accept that you were wrong when you said that no external reference
> is required.
>
> And since you need to know the time of year to determine what amount of
> correction is needed to apply as the Equation of Time you were doubly wrong.
> You need the Sun to get a more or less wrong answer, and you need a further
> exteral reference (the ecliptic) to get the figre right.
>

It is wonderful to have the original articles which promote the
correlation between clocks , axial rotation and how to determine your
location on the planet based on 4 minutes for each degree of
rotation.The journals, preceding the error created by Flamsteed in
1676, explain how the Equation of Time correction is applied and the
handy ways to find local noon in order to maintain the transfer of
clock time to longitude position using the principle of independent
axial rotation.

There are multitudes of people just like you who justify the return of
a star to your location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds using the
axial and orbital motion of the Earth,so many that it seems an almost
impossible task to alter the view back to the original setup -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

> >This is a bare principle devised by pre-Copernican
> > astronomers who had no practical idea that the Earth had axial
> > rotation and orbital motion.
> >
> > Do you really wish to justify axial rotation by way of celestial sphere
> > geometry and the return of a star to your location ?.
> >
>
> What do you mean by 'justlfy' in that sentence? (be brief and stick to the
> point)

The original principles for the transfer of the pre-Copernican equable
24 hour day to its heliocentric adaption to axial rotation is there for
anyone who cares to appreciate them and develop as a shared
astronomical heritage.These principles are so enjoyable and exquisite
that to struggle to have them noticed is almost a shame and now my
only real objection.

Promote celestial sphere geometry using the axial and orbital motions
of the Earth to this eager audience,I will even provide the graphic -

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif

How far that simpleminded junk is removed from my astronomical
heritage but it is your right to believe in it and the exotic concepts
which emerged as a consequence of linking axial rotation to warped
celestial sphere geometry.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 19:01:42
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160588715.525453.220230@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>>
>> So you accept that you were wrong when you said that no external
>> reference
>> is required.
>>
>> And since you need to know the time of year to determine what amount of
>> correction is needed to apply as the Equation of Time you were doubly
>> wrong.
>> You need the Sun to get a more or less wrong answer, and you need a
>> further
>> exteral reference (the ecliptic) to get the figre right.
>>

> It is wonderful to have the original articles which promote the
> correlation between clocks , axial rotation and how to determine your
> location on the planet based on 4 minutes for each degree of
> rotation.The journals, preceding the error created by Flamsteed in
> 1676, explain how the Equation of Time correction is applied and the
> handy ways to find local noon in order to maintain the transfer of
> clock time to longitude position using the principle of independent
> axial rotation.

Yes, clever isn't it. But irrelevant the point under discussion. The
Equation of Time is required.

>
> There are multitudes of people just like you who justify the return of
> a star to your location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds using the
> axial and orbital motion of the Earth,so many that it seems an almost
> impossible task to alter the view back to the original setup -
>
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
>
Any chance of a link that isn't broken?

>
>> >This is a bare principle devised by pre-Copernican
>> > astronomers who had no practical idea that the Earth had axial
>> > rotation and orbital motion.
>> >
>> > Do you really wish to justify axial rotation by way of celestial sphere
>> > geometry and the return of a star to your location ?.
>> >
>>
>> What do you mean by 'justlfy' in that sentence? (be brief and stick to
>> the
>> point)

I did ask for you to be brief and to the point. What do you mean by
'Justify' ?

> The original principles for the transfer of the pre-Copernican equable
> 24 hour day

Do tell us how many days actually have 24 hours between successive meridiem
passages of the Sun?

How many?

Date: 01 Oct 2006 02:57:56
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159623480.331551.197660@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > OG wrote:
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1159446401.883857.161550@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > OG wrote:
> >> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1159382942.492260.38450@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The calendrical convenience of a 1461 day cycle broken up into 3
> >> >> > years
> >> >> > of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days was and remains a gorgeous human
> >> >> > achievement,so old that the further minor adjustments amounts to 10
> >> >> > days in 1582.As there is an alternate number of days every 4th
> >> >> > year,it
> >> >> > should give you a clue that there are two systems involved,the first
> >> >> > governs the creation of the equable 24 hour day
> >> >>
> >> >> There is no natural 'equable' 24 hour day.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I am delighted that you agree
> >>
> >> So why do YOU talk about the 'equitable 24hd' as though it exists?
> >>
> >
> > You justify the return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04 secs by
> > falsely assuming that a location on Earth rotates to the face the
> > noon Sun in 24 hours exactly -
>
> Oh I see. You completely fail to understand what astronomers think,
> therefore you think they are mistaken.

I would imagine that there are more than a few here who can actually
appreciate the exquisite two step process which creates the equable
24 hour day first and then the heliocentric adaption to axial rotation
of the Earth at 15 degrees per hour while others would be incapable of
grasping the easy to understand correlation between clocks and
planetary rotation and geometry.

There are no astronomers around to be mistaken,there are only celestial
sphere geometers promoting their cartoon version of axial and orbital
motions and I most certainly am not trying to convince this dismal
crowd how wrong they are.I can appeal to astrophotographers to admire
the Ra/Dec system as an observational convenience based on the calendar
system but beyond that the system is catastrophic for heliocentric
modelling.

It is something else to see people intently opposing two of the
greatest human achievements - the creation of the equable 24 hour day
and its later adaption to axial rotation yet that is exactly the case.I
have to put this down to unfamiliarity and even if I am prepared for
the stupid objections of celestial sphere geometers there can be no
excuse for the silence surrounding one of the most fundamental
astronomical correlations of all .

Date: 12 Oct 2006 03:32:10
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote in message
> news:452d9d66$0$9457$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> > OG wrote:
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160564233.598934.16040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>OG wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>How do you know when you are back in the same place without an external
> >>>>reference.
> >>
> >> You are clearly using the sun as an external reference. So how does that
> >> square with the claim that 'no external reference is necessary' ?
> >> So - what is the means of knowing when you have completed 360 degrees
> >> WITHOUT an external reference?
>
> > A gyro.
>
> Yes, thanks for that, but O36 is not so easily fooled by these 'real
> science' tricks.

The return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
seconds is based on a 1461 day cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
of 366 days.It should strike people that there is no way to justify the
Earth's axial and orbital motions using a system which requires a leap
correction every fourth year but then again,if the exquisiteEquation
of Time system which links the 24 hour day to axial rotation at
precisely 24 hours/360 degrees was appreciated I would not have to
point out exactly why having celestial sphere geometry governing solar
system dynamics is the most destructive concept ever to enter the
investigation of natural phenomena.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:35:33
From: Patrick Wallace
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160649130.008089.200550@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
> seconds is based on a 1461 day cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
> of 366 days.

No it isn't. You're completely wrong. It's based on how fast the Earth
rotates with respect to objects remote from the solar system.

It's an observation, not a consequence of a calendar.

Patrick Wallace
______________________________________________________

Date: 12 Oct 2006 21:39:29
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160649130.008089.200550@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> "Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote in message
>> news:452d9d66$0$9457$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
>> > OG wrote:
>> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1160564233.598934.16040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >>>OG wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>How do you know when you are back in the same place without an
>> >>>>external
>> >>>>reference.
>> >>
>> >> You are clearly using the sun as an external reference. So how does
>> >> that
>> >> square with the claim that 'no external reference is necessary' ?
>> >> So - what is the means of knowing when you have completed 360 degrees
>> >> WITHOUT an external reference?
>>
>> > A gyro.
>>
>> Yes, thanks for that, but O36 is not so easily fooled by these 'real
>> science' tricks.
>
> The return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
> seconds is based on a 1461 day cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
> of 366 days.

Goodness me, how hard you make things.

Clearly, the return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
seconds is based on the cycle that returns a star to the meridian in 23 56
04 which is the rotation of the earth.

>It should strike people that there is no way to justify the
> Earth's axial and orbital motions using a system which requires a leap
> correction every fourth year but then again,if the exquisiteEquation
> of Time system which links the 24 hour day to axial rotation at
> precisely 24 hours/360 degrees was appreciated I would not have to
> point out exactly why having celestial sphere geometry governing solar
> system dynamics is the most destructive concept ever to enter the
> investigation of natural phenomena.
>

You have never explained yourself as to why it is destructive - you just
repeat the claim ad-nauseam. Not surprising really - you've admitted your
ignorance of basic principles and you refuse to engage with the arguments
presented. You are incapable of understanding your own point of view - which
is why your presentation never varies.

Do you really believe that the leap year depends on anything other that the
ratio between year and day is not an simple integer?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 17:00:12
From: David Knisely
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG, you have been responding to "troll bait". Just ignore him. He isn't
worth the effort of responding to him.
--
David W. Knisely KA0CZC@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Date: 12 Oct 2006 10:36:13
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Mr Oriel, thanks for the clarification. I was somewhat confused, but now I
completely understand and look forward to your continued posts to this
newsgroup.

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160649130.008089.200550@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> "Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote in message
>> news:452d9d66$0$9457$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
>> > OG wrote:
>> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1160564233.598934.16040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >>>OG wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>How do you know when you are back in the same place without an
>> >>>>external
>> >>>>reference.
>> >>
>> >> You are clearly using the sun as an external reference. So how does
>> >> that
>> >> square with the claim that 'no external reference is necessary' ?
>> >> So - what is the means of knowing when you have completed 360 degrees
>> >> WITHOUT an external reference?
>>
>> > A gyro.
>>
>> Yes, thanks for that, but O36 is not so easily fooled by these 'real
>> science' tricks.
>
> The return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
> seconds is based on a 1461 day cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
> of 366 days.It should strike people that there is no way to justify the
> Earth's axial and orbital motions using a system which requires a leap
> correction every fourth year but then again,if the exquisiteEquation
> of Time system which links the 24 hour day to axial rotation at
> precisely 24 hours/360 degrees was appreciated I would not have to
> point out exactly why having celestial sphere geometry governing solar
> system dynamics is the most destructive concept ever to enter the
> investigation of natural phenomena.
>

Date: 02 Oct 2006 08:41:58
From: John Carruthers
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

> It is something else to see people intently opposing two of the
> greatest human achievements - the creation of the equable 24 hour day
> and its later adaption to axial rotation yet that is exactly the case.I
> have to put this down to unfamiliarity and even if I am prepared for
> the stupid objections of celestial sphere geometers there can be no
> excuse for the silence surrounding one of the most fundamental
> astronomical correlations of all .

Gezza lad, for once please tell me what you alone have acomplished or
contributed to the subject.
Try to move away from the monitor, go outside and put a stick in the
ground.
Over the next year or so mark the position of the stick's shadow at 24
hour intervals (or measure the time interval between the shadow's
successive returns to the original mark).
After the year has elapsed come back and discuss your observations.
Do try not to live vicariously through better astronomers and thinkers
than yourself.
Should we require the worthy Kepler's thoughts on the subject we know
well where to find them. When we require your direction on procreation
be assured we will seek you out.
jc

Date: 11 Oct 2006 11:17:11
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160588715.525453.220230@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >>
> >> So you accept that you were wrong when you said that no external
> >> reference
> >> is required.
> >>
> >> And since you need to know the time of year to determine what amount of
> >> correction is needed to apply as the Equation of Time you were doubly
> >> wrong.
> >> You need the Sun to get a more or less wrong answer, and you need a
> >> further
> >> exteral reference (the ecliptic) to get the figre right.
> >>
>
> > It is wonderful to have the original articles which promote the
> > correlation between clocks , axial rotation and how to determine your
> > location on the planet based on 4 minutes for each degree of
> > rotation.The journals, preceding the error created by Flamsteed in
> > 1676, explain how the Equation of Time correction is applied and the
> > handy ways to find local noon in order to maintain the transfer of
> > clock time to longitude position using the principle of independent
> > axial rotation.
>
> Yes, clever isn't it. But irrelevant the point under discussion. The
> Equation of Time is required.
>

That is the real joy,the pre-Copernican correction governs the creation
of the 24 hour day and allows one 24 hour day to elapse into another 24
hour day.The heliocentric astronomers simply grafted it into the
principle that the Earth's axial rotation generates the daily cycle and
that the rotation is constant regardless of what causes the variations
in the total length of the day.

No external reference is therefore required to justify the correlation
between clocks and axial rotation at 4 minutes per each degree of
rotation making 24 hours/360 degrees in total.

I know,you want to get out of this thread and you are indeed free to go
without any prejudice.The postive thing in all this is that somebody
,with a little effort,can present to a wider audience how clocks keep
in sync with axial rotation insofar as I am obviously not the person to
do it.The tricky part is to acknowledge that the human devised
principle which created the 24 hour day is seperate from the principle
of axial rotation hence the two step process with one foot in
pre-copernican astronomy and the other as the heliocentric adaption.It
really does belong to nobody or at least belongs to human ingenuity
without any one particular person responsible for the whole system.

Humanity will thank the person for the gift of how clocks correlate
with axial rotation,not just the pragmatic side but the intricate
thuinking which links everything together.This is what has been missing
from astronomy and the sooner it comes back the better.

> >
> > There are multitudes of people just like you who justify the return of
> > a star to your location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds using the
> > axial and orbital motion of the Earth,so many that it seems an almost
> > impossible task to alter the view back to the original setup -
> >
> > http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
> >
> Any chance of a link that isn't broken?
>
> >
> >> >This is a bare principle devised by pre-Copernican
> >> > astronomers who had no practical idea that the Earth had axial
> >> > rotation and orbital motion.
> >> >
> >> > Do you really wish to justify axial rotation by way of celestial sphere
> >> > geometry and the return of a star to your location ?.
> >> >
> >>
> >> What do you mean by 'justlfy' in that sentence? (be brief and stick to
> >> the
> >> point)
>
> I did ask for you to be brief and to the point. What do you mean by
> 'Justify' ?
>
> > The original principles for the transfer of the pre-Copernican equable
> > 24 hour day
>
> Do tell us how many days actually have 24 hours between successive meridiem
> passages of the Sun?
>
> How many?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 01:39:28
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160590631.751666.217950@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160588715.525453.220230@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > It is wonderful to have the original articles which promote the
>> > correlation between clocks , axial rotation and how to determine your
>> > location on the planet based on 4 minutes for each degree of
>> > rotation.The journals, preceding the error created by Flamsteed in
>> > 1676, explain how the Equation of Time correction is applied and the
>> > handy ways to find local noon in order to maintain the transfer of
>> > clock time to longitude position using the principle of independent
>> > axial rotation.
>>
>> Yes, clever isn't it. But irrelevant the point under discussion. The
>> Equation of Time is required.
>>
>
> That is the real joy,the pre-Copernican correction governs the creation
> of the 24 hour day and allows one 24 hour day to elapse into another 24
> hour day.The heliocentric astronomers simply grafted it into the
> principle that the Earth's axial rotation generates the daily cycle and
> that the rotation is constant regardless of what causes the variations
> in the total length of the day.
>
> No external reference is therefore required to justify the correlation
> between clocks and axial rotation at 4 minutes per each degree of
> rotation making 24 hours/360 degrees in total.

So if we took a noontime snapshot of the sky when the Sun crosses the
meridian on a particular day and took another snapshot of the sky exactly 24
hours later, would the Sun be exactly on the meridian ?
NO

Because a correction factor is needed (except for on a few special days per
year when the Equation of Time permits).

On the other hand if you take a photo of the midnight sky when a particular
star crosses the meridian and take another photo exactly 23 56 04(.091)
later you would see the star in exactly the same position whatever day you
choose.

> I know,you want to get out of this thread and you are indeed free to go
> without any prejudice.The postive thing in all this is that somebody
> ,with a little effort,can present to a wider audience how clocks keep
> in sync with axial rotation insofar as I am obviously not the person to
> do it.

Since you admit that you are incapable of achieving the task you have set
yourself (mainly because your thesis is flawed, but you are incapable of
seeing it) is there any chance you could stop posting to this and other
newsgroups?

>The tricky part is to acknowledge that the human devised
> principle which created the 24 hour day is seperate from the principle
> of axial rotation hence the two step process with one foot in
> pre-copernican astronomy and the other as the heliocentric adaption.It
> really does belong to nobody or at least belongs to human ingenuity
> without any one particular person responsible for the whole system.

Yes, the 24 hour day is a rough approximation - you have been told this many
times. The post-hoc Equation of Time corrects the errors but is of
relatively recent invention.

> Humanity will thank the person for the gift of how clocks correlate
> with axial rotation,

No No No.
clocks tick accurately - as does axial rotation - but axial rotation
correlates to sidereal motion (and not the successive passages of solar
transits which is the bee in your bonnet)

>not just the pragmatic side but the intricate
> thuinking which links everything together.This is what has been missing
> from astronomy and the sooner it comes back the better.

This is actually the nub of your argument so it's a surprisingly vague
statement - which still needs justification. Either find someone who can
argue better than you or go away and stop bothering us with an argument that
you cannot justify.

In summary
Sloppy, poorly presented - an example of argument by assertion with very
little rational justification to support the case presented.

3/10

BTW
You have not addressed the views of LoonyO. If you need more time I'll give
you until Sunday evening.

Date: 02 Oct 2006 13:19:39
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:

> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159809785.851218.96500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Let me show you what you believe through Flamsteed's justification of
> > the return of a star to a meridian -
> >
> > http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000
> >
> > In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly
>
> What does 'a shadow returning to noon' mean? . Noon is a time, A shadow is a
> moving line on the ground. You have confused yourself once again.
>

> > In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly
>
> Does the NMM definition of the 24 hour solar day include the word 'exactly'
> in reference to the passage of the sun across the sky? No, I didn't think so
> either.
>
> > In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly in order to
> > justify the reurn of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>
> The sidereal day is exact. There is no need to posit an exactness to the
> solar day to determine the exactness of the sidereal day.
>
> > I can no longer compete with such rubbish as the NMM explanation above
> > when the actual principles which correlate clocks with axial rotation
> > through the noon Equation of Time correction at precisely 4 minutes for
> > each degree of rotation are so gorgeous that I have trouble imagining
> > why anyone would intentionally destroy it
>
> It does not 'destroy' it to point out that it is dependent on a fudge
> factor, a correction. You know what a "correction" is? it is something
> needed to make something else correct!
>
> <snippage>
>
> > The two step process which correlates axial rotation with the clocks
> > in 24 hours/360 degrees precisely is now open for anyone who cares to
> > explain it as a shared astronomical heritage which is gorgeous and
> > pragmatic.
>
> Yes (apart from not being exact) it is indeed gorgeous; but it is
> emphatically not exclusive of other more exact and useful means of
> expressing the relationship between heavens and earth.

The correlation between axial rotation and the clock value is and
always will be 4 minutes for each degree of rotation precisely making
24 hours/360 degrees in total.There is no burden attached to
appreciating the two step process which refers the pre-Copernican
Eqiuation of Time principles to its pragmatic heliocentric adaption to
axial rotation,it simply is for people who have genuine intellectual
and intuitive intelligence and I am prepared to leave it at that.

How long you can keep the belief that the Earth's axial and orbital
motions can be justified using the return of a star in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 sec is not for me to say.It is a huge mistake that is not
easy to conceal but then again I have come around to being positive and
can confidently say that people will really enjoy the two step process
of the Equation of Time system to care that 17th century celestial
sphere cataloguers got it wrong.

So,join the rest of humanity and celebrate that the pace of a hand of
clock you see on the wall is keeping in sync with the great cycle of
axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour precisely, the way the system
was developed makes it is a geometric certainty and one of the greatest
human inventive achievements of all.

Date: 02 Oct 2006 21:50:55
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1159820379.702869.229350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159809785.851218.96500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Let me show you what you believe through Flamsteed's justification of
>> > the return of a star to a meridian -
>> >
>> > http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000
>> >
>> > In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly
>>
>> What does 'a shadow returning to noon' mean? . Noon is a time, A shadow
>> is a
>> moving line on the ground. You have confused yourself once again.
>>

You haven't answered the question.What does 'a shadow returns to noon in 24
hours exactly' mean?

>
>
>> > In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly
>>
>> Does the NMM definition of the 24 hour solar day include the word
>> 'exactly'
>> in reference to the passage of the sun across the sky? No, I didn't think
>> so
>> either.
>>
>> > In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly in order to
>> > justify the reurn of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
>>
>> The sidereal day is exact. There is no need to posit an exactness to the
>> solar day to determine the exactness of the sidereal day.
>>
>> > I can no longer compete with such rubbish as the NMM explanation above
>> > when the actual principles which correlate clocks with axial rotation
>> > through the noon Equation of Time correction at precisely 4 minutes for
>> > each degree of rotation are so gorgeous that I have trouble imagining
>> > why anyone would intentionally destroy it
>>
>> It does not 'destroy' it to point out that it is dependent on a fudge
>> factor, a correction. You know what a "correction" is? it is something
>> needed to make something else correct!
>>
>> <snippage>
>>
>> > The two step process which correlates axial rotation with the clocks
>> > in 24 hours/360 degrees precisely is now open for anyone who cares to
>> > explain it as a shared astronomical heritage which is gorgeous and
>> > pragmatic.
>>
>> Yes (apart from not being exact) it is indeed gorgeous; but it is
>> emphatically not exclusive of other more exact and useful means of
>> expressing the relationship between heavens and earth.
>
> The correlation between axial rotation and the clock value is and
> always will be 4 minutes for each degree of rotation precisely making
> 24 hours/360 degrees in total.

Where does the clock rate come from? You can't get a precise clock rate
from the Sun can you? The best you can get is a variable clock that needs
correction through the Equation of Time.

>There is no burden attached to
> appreciating the two step process which refers the pre-Copernican
> Eqiuation of Time principles to its pragmatic heliocentric adaption to
> axial rotation,it simply is for people who have genuine intellectual
> and intuitive intelligence and I am prepared to leave it at that.

By two stage you mean 'the approximation of 24 hours isn't precise (though
it may be pragmatic), so it can be corrected by means of a calendrical fix.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 03:45:52
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> OG wrote:
> > You are avoiding discussion once again - what is it, incompetence or
> > fear ?
>
> Please consider that you are very likely arguing with someone who truly
> suffers from a mental illness. To be blunt, my five-year-old could win
> this argument with him. Think about it... You've had your fun; perhaps
> you should just let him be.
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw

I do not know and do not want to know what it takes to believe in the
things you do but there is nothing healthy about celestial sphere
geometry and although it represents an observational convenience ,to
imagine that it can be used to justify the Earth's motions is really
unhealthy.

I have absolutely no regard for what you think of me , in fighting the
celestial sphere rot by promoting the original insights which uses
orbital motion in isolation to justify Copernican heliocentricity and
axial rotation in isolation for the 24 hour clock system at 15 degrees
per hour there can be no room for personal concern.

In an era where an accurate relationship betwen axial and orbital
motion is required for climatological studies,the fact that astronomy
is in the hands of people who think that magnification is the sole
purpose of astronomy is a really dismal conclusion.It should take just
one person to affirm that the original Equation of Time principles
control the correlation betwen clocks and axial rotation, a triumph of
human imagination,but I cannot even get one person,one individual to
celebrate that shared astronomical fact.

How you live out the rest of your lives is not my concern,that you will
teach children who cannot defend themselves (no more than you could
yourselves) is my business.

> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye

Date: 14 Oct 2006 03:18:44
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160737628.593742.273200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > That planetary motion is seen directly from Earth is a wonderful
> > experience that really can only be appreciated by going outside and
> > looking out on the other planets.
> >
> > Newton could not even get that right and adopted a view that has
> > nothing to do with either Ptolemaic or Copernican heliocentricity and
> > how to reason the observed motions of the planets -
> >
> > "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> > stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
> > always seen direct.." Newton
>
> briefly explain what is wrong with that statement.
>

The statement by Newton is completely incorrect and can be easily seen
to be incorrect.The only acceptable way to treat retrogrades and their
resolution is like thus -

Against the stellar background the motions of the planets are seen to
move forward,stop,move backwards (retrograde) and then move forward
again.From an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
directly in our and their heliocentric motion around the Sun.Hence the
gorgeous Copernican insight can now be easily understood using
contemporary imaging -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Dropping the stellar background is as important for isolating orbital
motion as dropping the stellar background is important for isolating
axial rotation in order to comprehend the correlation between clockls
and axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour.

> 'Direct' and 'Retrograde' have specific meanings here and it is clear that
> he is referring to the appearance from Earth.

Retrogrades have a specific meaning indeed and retrogrades are not seen
from an orbitally moving Earth,retrogrades are plotted motions seen
against the stellar background,The Ptolemaic astronomers concluded that
periodic looping motions occured in the motions of the planets against
a stationary Earth while Copernicus split the Earth's motions into
axial and orbital and concluded that the observed motions are due to a
faster Earth overtaking the slower moving outer planets -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the centre,
with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth
repeats its circle sixteen times "

Astronomia Nova 1609

Again,not one individual here ,even though they call themselves
'astronomers' ,has yet to affirm the Copernican insight that planetary
motions are seen directly from Earth,even with the time lapse footage
of Jupiter and Saturn before them.The Newtonian mutation of what
retrogrades are and how they are resolved is complete and utter
nonsense.

Date: 14 Oct 2006 14:17:09
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160821124.419168.54030@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160737628.593742.273200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > That planetary motion is seen directly from Earth is a wonderful
>> > experience that really can only be appreciated by going outside and
>> > looking out on the other planets.
>> >
>> > Newton could not even get that right and adopted a view that has
>> > nothing to do with either Ptolemaic or Copernican heliocentricity and
>> > how to reason the observed motions of the planets -
>> >
>> > "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
>> > stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
>> > always seen direct.." Newton
>>
>> briefly explain what is wrong with that statement.
>>
>
> The statement by Newton is completely incorrect and can be easily seen
> to be incorrect.The only acceptable way to treat retrogrades and their
> resolution is like thus -
>
> Against the stellar background the motions of the planets are seen to
> move forward,stop,move backwards (retrograde) and then move forward
> again.

And that is exactly what Newton says ""For to the earth planetary motions
appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde"

>From an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
> directly in our and their heliocentric motion around the Sun.

And that is exactly what Newton says. "But from the sun they are always seen
direct."

>Hence the
> gorgeous Copernican insight can now be easily understood using
> contemporary imaging -
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>

Up til now you make perfect sense (apart from the unwarranted assertion that
this is the 'only acceptable way' ),

> Dropping the stellar background is as important for isolating orbital
> motion as dropping the stellar background is important for isolating
> axial rotation in order to comprehend the correlation between clockls
> and axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour.

Logically you are correct - both actions would be completely idiotic . In
other words "Dropping the stellar background is as _meaningless_ for
isolating . . . " etc.
It makes no sense to drop the stellar background as that is how the orbital
motion is (explicitly) detected. .

>
>> 'Direct' and 'Retrograde' have specific meanings here and it is clear
>> that
>> he is referring to the appearance from Earth.
>
> Retrogrades have a specific meaning indeed and retrogrades are not seen
> from an orbitally moving Earth

Yes they are. They are very much seen from the Earth as you acknowledge in
your second paragraph.

>,retrogrades are plotted motions seen
> against the stellar background,The Ptolemaic astronomers concluded that
> periodic looping motions occured in the motions of the planets against
> a stationary Earth while Copernicus split the Earth's motions into
> axial and orbital and concluded that the observed motions are due to a
> faster Earth overtaking the slower moving outer planets -

Indeed he did. But the retrograde motions are 'observed' which you firstly
accept and then deny. You need to clarify the matter in your own mind.

> "Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
> entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
> leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
> [orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
> shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
> times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the centre,
> with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth
> repeats its circle sixteen times "
>
> Astronomia Nova 1609
>
> Again,not one individual here ,even though they call themselves
> 'astronomers' ,has yet to affirm the Copernican insight that planetary
> motions are seen directly from Earth,even with the time lapse footage
> of Jupiter and Saturn before them.The Newtonian mutation of what
> retrogrades are and how they are resolved is complete and utter
> nonsense.

But you have still not justified that statement. The 'essay' above contains
contradictory statements as I have pointed out.

Try again, but try and do it better.

Or accept that you are not able to support your argument and withdraw. .

Date: 14 Oct 2006 10:23:28
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> Try again, but try and do it better.
>
> Or accept that you are not able to support your argument and withdraw. .

Do you kick sick puppies and then gloat about how strong you?
Please put this poor sick guy in your kill file and leave him be.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 15 Oct 2006 00:00:08
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:3338d$45310eb9$4212a52c$14591@TULAROSA.NET...
> OG wrote:
>> Try again, but try and do it better.
>>
>> Or accept that you are not able to support your argument and withdraw. .
>
> Do you kick sick puppies and then gloat about how strong you?
> Please put this poor sick guy in your kill file and leave him be.
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw

Greg, I must protest.
O36 clearly has some point he's trying to put over - obviously I think he's
incorrect in his view as currently stated; but as an incorrigible teacher I
need to find out why he believes what he does so that I can either direct
him to the flaws in his understanding and change his view, or (possibly)
develop a valid synthesis between both views so that we can move on.

You may prefer to ignore this thread.

Date: 14 Oct 2006 18:02:43
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3338d$45310eb9$4212a52c$14591@TULAROSA.NET...
>> OG wrote:
>>> Try again, but try and do it better.
>>>
>>> Or accept that you are not able to support your argument and withdraw. .
>> Do you kick sick puppies and then gloat about how strong you?
>> Please put this poor sick guy in your kill file and leave him be.
>>
>> --
>> Greg Crinklaw
>
> Greg, I must protest.
> O36 clearly has some point he's trying to put over - obviously I think he's
> incorrect in his view as currently stated; but as an incorrigible teacher I
> need to find out why he believes what he does so that I can either direct
> him to the flaws in his understanding and change his view, or (possibly)
> develop a valid synthesis between both views so that we can move on.

I understand that, because at least at one time I had the same, um,
"problem." ;-) But I think your are forgetting the fact that mental
illness is not a myth: it really exists! This person has been making
his odd arguments around here long enough that the consensus (it's not
just me) is that he truly needs professional help. Arguing with him
could have consequences that you can't imagine...

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 14 Oct 2006 23:40:30
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

On Sun, 15 2006 00:00:08 +0100, "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk >
wrote:

>Greg, I must protest.
>O36 clearly has some point he's trying to put over - obviously I think he's
>incorrect in his view as currently stated; but as an incorrigible teacher I
>need to find out why he believes what he does so that I can either direct
>him to the flaws in his understanding and change his view, or (possibly)
>develop a valid synthesis between both views so that we can move on.

Gerald has been arguing this same thing for years. He is mentally ill.
There is nothing you can teach here. Unless you develop some mental
illness yourself, you'll never "understand" the point he's trying to
make. Unless he gets some serious treatment, he'll never understand
yours. You must have noticed by now that he never responds to what is
said towards him. Like a machine, the same sentences just keep rolling
out in response. There are autoresponders that show more intelligence.

I'm not being glib here. Gerald is genuinely ill.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 02 Oct 2006 10:23:05
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

John Carruthers wrote:
> > It is something else to see people intently opposing two of the
> > greatest human achievements - the creation of the equable 24 hour day
> > and its later adaption to axial rotation yet that is exactly the case.I
> > have to put this down to unfamiliarity and even if I am prepared for
> > the stupid objections of celestial sphere geometers there can be no
> > excuse for the silence surrounding one of the most fundamental
> > astronomical correlations of all .
>
> Gezza lad, for once please tell me what you alone have acomplished or
> contributed to the subject.
> Try to move away from the monitor, go outside and put a stick in the
> ground.
> Over the next year or so mark the position of the stick's shadow at 24
> hour intervals (or measure the time interval between the shadow's
> successive returns to the original mark).

Let me show you what you believe through Flamsteed's justification of
the return of a star to a meridian -

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000

In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly in order to
justify the reurn of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.

I can no longer compete with such rubbish as the NMM explanation above
when the actual principles which correlate clocks with axial rotation
through the noon Equation of Time correction at precisely 4 minutes for
each degree of rotation are so gorgeous that I have trouble imagining
why anyone would intentionally destroy it

> After the year has elapsed come back and discuss your observations.
> Do try not to live vicariously through better astronomers and thinkers
> than yourself.
> Should we require the worthy Kepler's thoughts on the subject we know
> well where to find them. When we require your direction on procreation
> be assured we will seek you out.
> jc

Most of humanity already knows that the Earth rotates on its axis in 24
hours or 15 degrees per hour without knowing exactly how this
correlation came to be.I have presented the outlines of the two step
process which is partly pre-Copernican and partly heliocentric and it
is such a lovely intricate way of thinking .

Astrophotographers can still have the convenience of celestial sphere
geometry for observational purposes but justfying the Earth's axial and
orbital motions using celestial sphere geometry must cease.It remains
to be seen if an intuitive person can make the adjustment to
considering the Equation of Time system as a kind of daily 'leap'
adjustment to equalise the variations in the total length of the day.

Looking at your response with your stick/shadow it would embarrass me
to contend with you as the intricate reasoning of my astronomical
ancestors,both pre-Copernican and heliocentric , has already been cut
to pieces on my account.Our existence depends on the Earth's motions
and the heliocentric astronomers who first presented how the Earth
moves in two seperate ways deserve a better audience than celestial
sphere geometers.Whether genuine people make the effort to see how
axial motion and orbital motion can be appreciated in isolation from
each other remains something I cannot and would not care to influence.

The two step process which correlates axial rotation with the clocks
in 24 hours/360 degrees precisely is now open for anyone who cares to
explain it as a shared astronomical heritage which is gorgeous and
pragmatic.

Date: 02 Oct 2006 20:43:13
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1159809785.851218.96500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Let me show you what you believe through Flamsteed's justification of
> the return of a star to a meridian -
>
> http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000
>
> In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly

What does 'a shadow returning to noon' mean? . Noon is a time, A shadow is a
moving line on the ground. You have confused yourself once again.

> In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly

Does the NMM definition of the 24 hour solar day include the word 'exactly'
in reference to the passage of the sun across the sky? No, I didn't think so
either.

> In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly in order to
> justify the reurn of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.

The sidereal day is exact. There is no need to posit an exactness to the
solar day to determine the exactness of the sidereal day.

> I can no longer compete with such rubbish as the NMM explanation above
> when the actual principles which correlate clocks with axial rotation
> through the noon Equation of Time correction at precisely 4 minutes for
> each degree of rotation are so gorgeous that I have trouble imagining
> why anyone would intentionally destroy it

It does not 'destroy' it to point out that it is dependent on a fudge
factor, a correction. You know what a "correction" is? it is something
needed to make something else correct!

<snippage >

> The two step process which correlates axial rotation with the clocks
> in 24 hours/360 degrees precisely is now open for anyone who cares to
> explain it as a shared astronomical heritage which is gorgeous and
> pragmatic.

Yes (apart from not being exact) it is indeed gorgeous; but it is
emphatically not exclusive of other more exact and useful means of
expressing the relationship between heavens and earth.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:55:53
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Patrick Wallace wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160649130.008089.200550@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > The return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
> > seconds is based on a 1461 day cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
> > of 366 days.
>
> No it isn't. You're completely wrong. It's based on how fast the Earth
> rotates with respect to objects remote from the solar system.
>
> It's an observation, not a consequence of a calendar.
>
>
> Patrick Wallace
> ______________________________________________________

No external reference is required to justify the correlation between
the pace of clocks in sync with axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour
making precisely 24 hours/360 degrees in total.

The motion of the Earth beneath Foucault's pendulum indicates that at
the polar axis this motion of the Earth will be precisely 24 hours/360
degrees affirming the principles designed by the preCopernican
astronomers in creating the equable 24 hour day and the heliocentric
astronomers who adapted it to axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour -

http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/people/students/baker/SouthPoleFoucault.html

The guys at the South Pole could not have considered any other value
for axial rotation through 360 degrees other than 24 hours exactly.If
you think the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56
minutes,that is your priviledge but no known principle,astronomical or
terrestrial supports it.

The convenience of the Ra/Dec system is fine for observational
astronomy just so long as no attempt is made to justify the return of a
star to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds using the axial
and orbital motions of the Earth.Observational and astro-imaging guys
can really help here in promoting the distinction between the Ra/Dec
system as a convenience and allowing that axial rotation is seperate to
orbital motion in principle and no external reference is required to
justify constant axial rotation.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:39:39
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Patrick Wallace wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160649130.008089.200550@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > The return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
> > seconds is based on a 1461 day cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
> > of 366 days.
>
> No it isn't. You're completely wrong. It's based on how fast the Earth
> rotates with respect to objects remote from the solar system.
>

The original principles which correlate axial rotation with clocks at
15 degrees per hour making 24 hours/360 degrees in total do not use
celestial sphere geometry,not even in its pre-Copernican form.This is
why people who do experiments based on Foucault's pendulum rely on the
principle that axial rotation will be 24 hours/ 360 degrees at the
geographical axis of the Earth -

http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/people/students/baker/SouthPoleFoucault.html

The daily cycle is based on axial rotation ,what keeps clocks in sync
with axial rotation at 24 hours/360 degrees has nothing to do with
celestial sphere geometry or external references,it is simply the
exquisite way the heliocentric astronomers slotted the existing
Equation of Time principles which govern the 24 hour day and how these
equable days elapse into each other into the geographical and
geometrical seperation based on axial rotation at 15 degrees of
longitude for each 1 hour of rotation.

> It's an observation, not a consequence of a calendar.
>
>
> Patrick Wallace
> ______________________________________________________

It is an observation as a consequence of the calendar system which is a
1461 day cycle split into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366
days.The calendar system is based on the calculation of the annual
orbit using equable 24 hour days so genius,you have to figure out how
to create the equable 24 hour day first.Then you are back with me
,drumming my fingers,and directing you towards the Equation of Time
correction and its heliocentric adaption to axial rotation at 24
hours/360 degrees.

The observational convenience of the Ra/Dec system does not require you
to justify the observation of a star's return to a meridian in 23 hours
56 minutes 04 seconds using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:26:30
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160649130.008089.200550@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >> "Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote in message
> >> news:452d9d66$0$9457$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> >> > OG wrote:
> >> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1160564233.598934.16040@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>
> >> >>>OG wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>How do you know when you are back in the same place without an
> >> >>>>external
> >> >>>>reference.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are clearly using the sun as an external reference. So how does
> >> >> that
> >> >> square with the claim that 'no external reference is necessary' ?
> >> >> So - what is the means of knowing when you have completed 360 degrees
> >> >> WITHOUT an external reference?
> >>
> >> > A gyro.
> >>
> >> Yes, thanks for that, but O36 is not so easily fooled by these 'real
> >> science' tricks.
> >
> > The return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
> > seconds is based on a 1461 day cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
> > of 366 days.
>
> Goodness me, how hard you make things.
>

> Clearly, the return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
> seconds is based on the cycle that returns a star to the meridian in 23 56
> 04 which is the rotation of the earth.
>

The astrophotographers can promote heliocentric astronomy by
developing time lapse footage of the motions of the other planets in
affirming that our planet has an orbital motion around the Sun and how
this motion is seen directly by explaining how it overtakes the slower
moving outer planets -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

The flip side of orbital motion in isolation is axial rotation in
isolation and that is where the 24 hour clock system and rotation at 15
degrees per hour mesh with heliocentric astronomy.The gorgeous two step
process which belongs to both pre-Copernican and heliocentric
astronomers sparkles with the intelligence that once was astronomy and
may yet do so again.

Celestial sphere geometers who have been justifying the return of a
star to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds using the axial
and orbital motions of the Earth and building concepts on that value
have been dominant for many centuries.With the help of modern
imaging,astronomy can be restored and the great Western astronomical
insights can blossom again.

The creationist element in all this is celestial sphere geometry and
those who take the trouble to defend this observational convenience
based on the calendar system should be left to their own devices.The
problem is not convincing you that you are wrong,the problem is that
the correct shared astronomical heritage which isolates axial and
orbital motions for their respective purposes exist and nobody
appreciates them.

> >It should strike people that there is no way to justify the
> > Earth's axial and orbital motions using a system which requires a leap
> > correction every fourth year but then again,if the exquisiteEquation
> > of Time system which links the 24 hour day to axial rotation at
> > precisely 24 hours/360 degrees was appreciated I would not have to
> > point out exactly why having celestial sphere geometry governing solar
> > system dynamics is the most destructive concept ever to enter the
> > investigation of natural phenomena.
> >
>
> You have never explained yourself as to why it is destructive - you just
> repeat the claim ad-nauseam. Not surprising really - you've admitted your
> ignorance of basic principles and you refuse to engage with the arguments
> presented. You are incapable of understanding your own point of view - which
> is why your presentation never varies.
>
> Do you really believe that the leap year depends on anything other that the
> ratio between year and day is not an simple integer?

Date: 13 Oct 2006 00:50:55
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160688390.101068.26830@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> OG wrote:
>> >
>> > The return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
>> > seconds is based on a 1461 day cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
>> > of 366 days.
>>
>> Goodness me, how hard you make things.
>>
>
>> Clearly, the return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
>> seconds is based on the cycle that returns a star to the meridian in 23
>> 56
>> 04 which is the rotation of the earth.
>>
>
> The astrophotographers can promote heliocentric astronomy by
> developing time lapse footage of the motions of the other planets in
> affirming that our planet has an orbital motion around the Sun and how
> this motion is seen directly by explaining how it overtakes the slower
> moving outer planets -

Yes, they can and it does. However it is of limited value, though a pleasant
diversion.

But there is still a serious issue to be discussed - your ignorance of basic
astronomical processes and your hubris in thinking you can proscribe
approaches to the subject that are different to yours . . .

>> >It should strike people that there is no way to justify the
>> > Earth's axial and orbital motions using a system which requires a leap
>> > correction every fourth year but then again,if the exquisiteEquation
>> > of Time system which links the 24 hour day to axial rotation at
>> > precisely 24 hours/360 degrees was appreciated I would not have to
>> > point out exactly why having celestial sphere geometry governing solar
>> > system dynamics is the most destructive concept ever to enter the
>> > investigation of natural phenomena.
>> >
>>
>> You have never explained yourself as to why it is destructive - you just
>> repeat the claim ad-nauseam. Not surprising really - you've admitted your
>> ignorance of basic principles and you refuse to engage with the arguments
>> presented. You are incapable of understanding your own point of view -
>> which
>> is why your presentation never varies.
>>
>> Do you really believe that the leap year depends on anything other that
>> the
>> ratio between year and day is not an simple integer?

You are avoiding discussion once again - what is it, incompetence or fear ?

Date: 12 Oct 2006 23:07:08
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> You are avoiding discussion once again - what is it, incompetence or
> fear ?

Please consider that you are very likely arguing with someone who truly
suffers from a mental illness. To be blunt, my five-year-old could win
this argument with him. Think about it... You've had your fun; perhaps
you should just let him be.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 13 Oct 2006 04:07:08
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160688390.101068.26830@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
> >> > seconds is based on a 1461 day cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
> >> > of 366 days.
> >>
> >> Goodness me, how hard you make things.
> >>
> >
> >> Clearly, the return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes and 04
> >> seconds is based on the cycle that returns a star to the meridian in 23
> >> 56
> >> 04 which is the rotation of the earth.
> >>
> >
> > The astrophotographers can promote heliocentric astronomy by
> > developing time lapse footage of the motions of the other planets in
> > affirming that our planet has an orbital motion around the Sun and how
> > this motion is seen directly by explaining how it overtakes the slower
> > moving outer planets -
>
> Yes, they can and it does. However it is of limited value, though a pleasant
> diversion.
>

That planetary motion is seen directly from Earth is a wonderful
experience that really can only be appreciated by going outside and
looking out on the other planets.

Newton could not even get that right and adopted a view that has
nothing to do with either Ptolemaic or Copernican heliocentricity and
how to reason the observed motions of the planets -

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

Like the inability to grasp the principles which isolate axial rotation
to 15 degrees of rotation per hour,the inability to appreciate that
planetary orbital motions are seen directly from Earth is pushed aside
for the silly Newtonian view that does not acknowledge Copernbican
reasoning and the working principles for Kepler.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Any person who cannot acknowledge that the time lapse footage of
Jupiter and Saturn represents the faster Earth overtaking these planets
in an heliocentric orbital circuit and thereby affirming that planetary
heliocentric motions are seen directly from Earth can hardly be an
astronomer.The fact that the false Newtonian conception exists as a
dominant view,even with contemporary imaging,is nothing short of a
human tragedy.

> But there is still a serious issue to be discussed - your ignorance of basic
> astronomical processes and your hubris in thinking you can proscribe
> approaches to the subject that are different to yours . . .
>
> >> >It should strike people that there is no way to justify the
> >> > Earth's axial and orbital motions using a system which requires a leap
> >> > correction every fourth year but then again,if the exquisiteEquation
> >> > of Time system which links the 24 hour day to axial rotation at
> >> > precisely 24 hours/360 degrees was appreciated I would not have to
> >> > point out exactly why having celestial sphere geometry governing solar
> >> > system dynamics is the most destructive concept ever to enter the
> >> > investigation of natural phenomena.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You have never explained yourself as to why it is destructive - you just
> >> repeat the claim ad-nauseam. Not surprising really - you've admitted your
> >> ignorance of basic principles and you refuse to engage with the arguments
> >> presented. You are incapable of understanding your own point of view -
> >> which
> >> is why your presentation never varies.
> >>
> >> Do you really believe that the leap year depends on anything other that
> >> the
> >> ratio between year and day is not an simple integer?
>
> You are avoiding discussion once again - what is it, incompetence or fear ?

Date: 13 Oct 2006 19:13:30
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160737628.593742.273200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> That planetary motion is seen directly from Earth is a wonderful
> experience that really can only be appreciated by going outside and
> looking out on the other planets.
>
> Newton could not even get that right and adopted a view that has
> nothing to do with either Ptolemaic or Copernican heliocentricity and
> how to reason the observed motions of the planets -
>
> "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
> always seen direct.." Newton

briefly explain what is wrong with that statement.

'Direct' and 'Retrograde' have specific meanings here and it is clear that
he is referring to the appearance from Earth.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 03:23:11
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

The easiest and most fundamental tenet in all astronomy and one of the
most pragmatic and gorgeous human principles ever devised - the
correlation between clocks and axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour
and 24 hours/360 degrees in total and every single person here thinks
it is silly.

I would not mind so much were it just a case of unfamiliarity with the
two step process which links the pre-Copernican principles of the
equable 24 hour day with its heliocentric adaption to axial rotation
but that a person would willingly stick with celestial sphere geometry
as something worthwhile and sit heliocentric motion into it beggars
belief,in short,it seems almost impossible to believe that men would
willingly do this to humanity .

There must be no parents among you for no parent would willingly teach
their children a false drine.This celestial sphere drine is based
on justify the axial rotation of the Earth using the return of a star
to a location and is most certainly an anti-heliocentric view.

David Knisely wrote:
> OG, you have been responding to "troll bait". Just ignore him. He isn't
> worth the effort of responding to him.
> --
> David W. Knisely KA0CZC@navix.net
> Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
> Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
>
> **********************************************
> * Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
> * July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
> * http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
> **********************************************

Date: 03 Oct 2006 06:48:03
From:
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

oriel36 wrote:

> Again,I am prepared to leave it for people with both intellectual and
> intuitive intelligence to work it out for themselves but I may have to
> accept that this forum may not be the suitable place

Wow, you mean it has finally sunk in?
Better late than never.
Thank you for ceasing your ramblings. You really were sounding like
a broken record.

Please just have pity on our worthless souls and take your immense
wisdom elsewhere. Yes, it'll be our great loss, but we'll manage
without you.
Have a good life.. or whatever it is that you have,

Bye.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 04:25:29
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159820379.702869.229350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1159809785.851218.96500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Let me show you what you believe through Flamsteed's justification of
> >> > the return of a star to a meridian -
> >> >
> >> > http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000
> >> >
> >> > In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly
> >>
> >> What does 'a shadow returning to noon' mean? . Noon is a time, A shadow
> >> is a
> >> moving line on the ground. You have confused yourself once again.
> >>
>
> You haven't answered the question.What does 'a shadow returns to noon in 24
> hours exactly' mean?
>
> >
> >
> >> > In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly
> >>
> >> Does the NMM definition of the 24 hour solar day include the word
> >> 'exactly'
> >> in reference to the passage of the sun across the sky? No, I didn't think
> >> so
> >> either.
> >>
> >> > In your mind a shadow returns to noon in 24 hours exactly in order to
> >> > justify the reurn of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
> >>
> >> The sidereal day is exact. There is no need to posit an exactness to the
> >> solar day to determine the exactness of the sidereal day.
> >>
> >> > I can no longer compete with such rubbish as the NMM explanation above
> >> > when the actual principles which correlate clocks with axial rotation
> >> > through the noon Equation of Time correction at precisely 4 minutes for
> >> > each degree of rotation are so gorgeous that I have trouble imagining
> >> > why anyone would intentionally destroy it
> >>
> >> It does not 'destroy' it to point out that it is dependent on a fudge
> >> factor, a correction. You know what a "correction" is? it is something
> >> needed to make something else correct!
> >>
> >> <snippage>
> >>
> >> > The two step process which correlates axial rotation with the clocks
> >> > in 24 hours/360 degrees precisely is now open for anyone who cares to
> >> > explain it as a shared astronomical heritage which is gorgeous and
> >> > pragmatic.
> >>
> >> Yes (apart from not being exact) it is indeed gorgeous; but it is
> >> emphatically not exclusive of other more exact and useful means of
> >> expressing the relationship between heavens and earth.
> >
> > The correlation between axial rotation and the clock value is and
> > always will be 4 minutes for each degree of rotation precisely making
> > 24 hours/360 degrees in total.
>
> Where does the clock rate come from? You can't get a precise clock rate
> from the Sun can you? The best you can get is a variable clock that needs
> correction through the Equation of Time.
>

The standard pace of the hand movement of a clock was originally
devised by astronomers based on the daily cycle as the Sun returns to
noon .The heliocentric astronomers knew from observence that no two
daily cycles are the same so they equalised the variations by observing
naturl noon and applying corrections of minutes and seconds to create
the 24 hour day and more importantly to facilitate the seamless
transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day.

It is how the Equation of Time principles which govern the creation of
the 24 hour day get transfered to the heliocentric adaption for axial
rotation which is breathtaking in its genius and its intricacies.Having
delivered the insight by which the orbital motion of the Earth
resolved the observed motions of the planets, by dividing the Earth's
motions into seperate axial and orbital entities,these great
astronomers could then adapt the Equation of Time principles to axial
rotation in isolation.

No external reference is required to correlate the pace of a clock with
constant axial rotation at 4 minutes for each degree of rotation
making 24 hours through 360 degrees.As the Equation of Time,after it is
applied,simultaneously creates the 24 hour day and allows that 24 hour
day to elapse into the next 24 hour day,the heliocentric adaption to
axial rotation was to retain the antecedent equalised 24 hour cycle
using natural noon and superimpose the principle that the Earth has a
seperate and constant axial rotation.In short,the axial rotation of the
Earth was grafted into an existing system which was created by men to
reduce the natural inequalities in a day to a standard 24 hour day and
from there to the creation of the calendar system.

The way everything meshes together makes the old astronomical
timekeeping system one of the most gorgeous human inventions known and
this is even before the heliocentric adaption to axial rotation.It is
the reason why I celebrate it as a shared astronomical heritage .

> >There is no burden attached to
> > appreciating the two step process which refers the pre-Copernican
> > Eqiuation of Time principles to its pragmatic heliocentric adaption to
> > axial rotation,it simply is for people who have genuine intellectual
> > and intuitive intelligence and I am prepared to leave it at that.
>
> By two stage you mean 'the approximation of 24 hours isn't precise (though
> it may be pragmatic), so it can be corrected by means of a calendrical fix.

Again,I am prepared to leave it for people with both intellectual and
intuitive intelligence to work it out for themselves but I may have to
accept that this forum may not be the suitable place,even if I say that
with a little sorrow.Astronomy is a gift that has to be developed by
exercising the intuitive intelligence which affirms,rejects and creates
things based on physical considerations and the timekeeping systems are
highly intuitive structures.

That being said,the basics are easy enough to understand and should be
within the capabilities of even the most indifferent
astrophotographer.The 24 hour/360 degree correlation is absolutely a
vital point of departure for the understanding of our existence in
terms of geology and climatology while the false 23 hours 56 minutes 04
sec value is nothing more than a cartoon fit only for people who
believe in time travel and football shaped universes.

So,without the correct astronomical point of departure for the Earth's
axial rotation or what amounts to the same thing,retaining the
dominant justification for the Earth's motions using the return of a
star to a location,nobody can do anything productive.The 3 minute 56
second difference between the correct and erroneous values and the
principles which are attached to them represent an error so great that
until it is openly corrected,astronomy will remain dead,and the related
disciplines of climatology and geology will become sterile and barren
as a result of no linkage with the accurate relationship between axial
and orbital motions or these motions as seperate to each other.

It is most certainly an appeal on behalf of a shared astronomical
heritage and the works of the great astronomers including the Western
contribution but not in such a way that it comes from a position of
weakness.It is more of an invitation to develop the astronomical gift
based on intuitive intelligence in an era when most have the intuitive
intelligence beaten out of them through the 'scientific method'.

Humanity is great is the underlying message,a sparlking existence that
suits my Christian heritage,perhaps not the one which you know
exclusively through denominational Christianity but in the great sweep
of creative energy which passes from Christ and the tenets based on
love and not knowledge.You do what is most convenient for you and your
magnification exetrcises but astronomy proper has that majestic
sweeping cycles whaich making existence possible.I can say that I took
notice of those cycles and the people who originally presented them
with the same intuitive intelligence and admiration which is the
priviledge of all genuine and loving people.

That is astronomy !.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 09:38:45
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

oriel36 wrote:
> Again,I am prepared to leave it for people with both intellectual and
> intuitive intelligence to work it out for themselves but I may have to
> accept that this forum may not be the suitable place,even if I say that
> with a little sorrow.

Yes, alas, it would be better for you if you were simply to leave and
never return.

--
St. John
An expert is a person who avoids the small errors as he sweeps on to the
grand fallacy.
-Benjamin Stolberg

Date: 03 Oct 2006 19:52:59
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1159874729.869417.286280@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> Where does the clock rate come from? You can't get a precise clock rate
>> from the Sun can you? The best you can get is a variable clock that needs
>> correction through the Equation of Time.
>>
>
> The standard pace of the hand movement of a clock was originally
> devised by astronomers based on the daily cycle as the Sun returns to
> noon .The heliocentric astronomers knew from observence that no two
> daily cycles are the same so they equalised the variations by observing
> naturl noon and applying corrections of minutes and seconds to create
> the 24 hour day and more importantly to facilitate the seamless
> transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day.

OK, so you agree that a calendrical correction is applied to the solar time.

> It is how the Equation of Time principles which govern the creation of
> the 24 hour day get transfered to the heliocentric adaption for axial
> rotation which is breathtaking in its genius and its intricacies.Having
> delivered the insight by which the orbital motion of the Earth
> resolved the observed motions of the planets, by dividing the Earth's
> motions into seperate axial and orbital entities,these great
> astronomers could then adapt the Equation of Time principles to axial
> rotation in isolation.

Which great astronomers are these ? Please let's be specific.
And do you understand that the Equation of Time has nothing to do with the
axial alignment of the Earth?

Date: 14 Oct 2006 09:59:25
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> OG wrote:
> > Try again, but try and do it better.
> >
> > Or accept that you are not able to support your argument and withdraw. .
>
> Do you kick sick puppies and then gloat about how strong you?
> Please put this poor sick guy in your kill file and leave him be.
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye

I wonder how many can stomach the utter Newtonian nonsense which cannot
isolate orbital motion to resolve how planetary motions around the Sun
are seen from Earth and axial rotation in isolation for the correlation
between clocks in synce with rotation at 24 hours/360 degrees in total.

Two of the greatest known astronomical achievements of humanity
destroyed by a bunch of celestial sphere geometers and not one word of
opposition,even with the images in front of you.

The tragic consequences of destroying such beautiful and careful
observational work of the Ptolemaic and heliocentric astronomers and
the exquisite conclusion eventually drawn by Copernicus has no known
parallels in human history,even the incredible heliocentric adaption
which correlates clocks with axial rotation pales in comparison to the
destruction of the Western heliocentric insight.

Any astrophotographer, with a shread of intelligence ,can easily see
that retrogrades are plotted positions against the same stellar
background -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg

It is when those images of Saturn and Jupiter are seen as time lapse
footage that the gorgeous insight of Copernicus comes to life as the
faster Earth overtakes the slower moving planets -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Whatever disability or sickness that prevents people from affirming
that planetary motions around the Sun are seen from Earth but that
sickness seems to be pandemic here.

Date: 14 Oct 2006 09:43:45
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160821124.419168.54030@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160737628.593742.273200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That planetary motion is seen directly from Earth is a wonderful
> >> > experience that really can only be appreciated by going outside and
> >> > looking out on the other planets.
> >> >
> >> > Newton could not even get that right and adopted a view that has
> >> > nothing to do with either Ptolemaic or Copernican heliocentricity and
> >> > how to reason the observed motions of the planets -
> >> >
> >> > "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> >> > stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
> >> > always seen direct.." Newton
> >>
> >> briefly explain what is wrong with that statement.
> >>
> >
> > The statement by Newton is completely incorrect and can be easily seen
> > to be incorrect.The only acceptable way to treat retrogrades and their
> > resolution is like thus -
> >
> > Against the stellar background the motions of the planets are seen to
> > move forward,stop,move backwards (retrograde) and then move forward
> > again.
>
> And that is exactly what Newton says ""For to the earth planetary motions
> appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde"
>
> >From an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
> > directly in our and their heliocentric motion around the Sun.
>
> And that is exactly what Newton says. "But from the sun they are always seen
> direct."
>

> >Hence the
> > gorgeous Copernican insight can now be easily understood using
> > contemporary imaging -
> >
> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >
>
> Up til now you make perfect sense (apart from the unwarranted assertion that
> this is the 'only acceptable way' ),
>
> > Dropping the stellar background is as important for isolating orbital
> > motion as dropping the stellar background is important for isolating
> > axial rotation in order to comprehend the correlation between clockls
> > and axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour.
>
> Logically you are correct - both actions would be completely idiotic . In
> other words "Dropping the stellar background is as _meaningless_ for
> isolating . . . " etc.
> It makes no sense to drop the stellar background as that is how the orbital
> motion is (explicitly) detected. .
>

The Prolemaic astronomers share with the heliocentric astronomers the
common plotted data of planetary motions and subsequently observed
retrogrades against the stellar background .The Ptolemaic and
Copernican conclusions differ as to a stationary Earth or an orbitally
moving Earth and it should dawn on astrophotographers how the
complicated Ptolemaic spirals (Kepler's words) were replaced by an
orbitally moving Earth.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Once a person sees the Earth overtaking the slower moving outer
planets above,they immediately recognise that planetary orbital motions
are seen directly from Earth and that it makes sense to view
retrogrades as merely plotted data against the stellar
background,something common to both Ptolemaic and Copernican
astronomers.

It is a shared astronomical heritage so whether I make a minor error in
a post or Newtonm makes a catastrophic error in principle,the correct
view of retrogrades and their resolution from an orbitally moving Earth
is there for anyone to promote as an astronomer.The Newtonian version
is utter junk and can be seen openly as junk.

> >
> >> 'Direct' and 'Retrograde' have specific meanings here and it is clear
> >> that
> >> he is referring to the appearance from Earth.
> >
> > Retrogrades have a specific meaning indeed and retrogrades are not seen
> > from an orbitally moving Earth
>
> Yes they are. They are very much seen from the Earth as you acknowledge in
> your second paragraph.
>
> >,retrogrades are plotted motions seen
> > against the stellar background,The Ptolemaic astronomers concluded that
> > periodic looping motions occured in the motions of the planets against
> > a stationary Earth while Copernicus split the Earth's motions into
> > axial and orbital and concluded that the observed motions are due to a
> > faster Earth overtaking the slower moving outer planets -
>
> Indeed he did. But the retrograde motions are 'observed' which you firstly
> accept and then deny. You need to clarify the matter in your own mind.
>
> > "Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
> > entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
> > leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
> > [orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
> > shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
> > times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the centre,
> > with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth
> > repeats its circle sixteen times "
> >
> > Astronomia Nova 1609
> >
> > Again,not one individual here ,even though they call themselves
> > 'astronomers' ,has yet to affirm the Copernican insight that planetary
> > motions are seen directly from Earth,even with the time lapse footage
> > of Jupiter and Saturn before them.The Newtonian mutation of what
> > retrogrades are and how they are resolved is complete and utter
> > nonsense.
>
> But you have still not justified that statement. The 'essay' above contains
> contradictory statements as I have pointed out.
>
> Try again, but try and do it better.
>
> Or accept that you are not able to support your argument and withdraw. .

It is absolutely vital to get rid of celestial sphere geometry and the
concepts that emerged from it ,if not for the repulsive way it wrtecks
the reasoning of the heliocentric astronomers but for its catastrophic
effect on future productive avenues where the axial and orbital motions
are required,areas such as climatology.

I see from a new thread that the astrophotographic answer to the
destruction of Western heliocentric insights is to post a picture of
the crater on the moon making astronomy no more than an exercise in
magnification.

Date: 14 Oct 2006 06:41:37
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

Good of you to be so fast as to pick up on my typo,I withdrew the post
once I spotted it and replaced it with a more accurate version.

If your only achievement is to spot the typo then good for you but the
substance of the Copernican heliocentric reasoning remains unaltered -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to move
forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again but
from an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
directly around the Sun.

The false and destructive Newtonian view -

"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

I have yet to see another participant to affirm that planetary motions
are seen directly from Earth even with the time lapse footage before
them.

OG wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160821124.419168.54030@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > OG wrote:
> >> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160737628.593742.273200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That planetary motion is seen directly from Earth is a wonderful
> >> > experience that really can only be appreciated by going outside and
> >> > looking out on the other planets.
> >> >
> >> > Newton could not even get that right and adopted a view that has
> >> > nothing to do with either Ptolemaic or Copernican heliocentricity and
> >> > how to reason the observed motions of the planets -
> >> >
> >> > "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> >> > stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
> >> > always seen direct.." Newton
> >>
> >> briefly explain what is wrong with that statement.
> >>
> >
> > The statement by Newton is completely incorrect and can be easily seen
> > to be incorrect.The only acceptable way to treat retrogrades and their
> > resolution is like thus -
> >
> > Against the stellar background the motions of the planets are seen to
> > move forward,stop,move backwards (retrograde) and then move forward
> > again.
>
> And that is exactly what Newton says ""For to the earth planetary motions
> appear sometimes direct, sometimes
> stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde"
>
> >From an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
> > directly in our and their heliocentric motion around the Sun.
>
> And that is exactly what Newton says. "But from the sun they are always seen
> direct."
>
> >Hence the
> > gorgeous Copernican insight can now be easily understood using
> > contemporary imaging -
> >
> > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> >
>
> Up til now you make perfect sense (apart from the unwarranted assertion that
> this is the 'only acceptable way' ),
>
> > Dropping the stellar background is as important for isolating orbital
> > motion as dropping the stellar background is important for isolating
> > axial rotation in order to comprehend the correlation between clockls
> > and axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour.
>
> Logically you are correct - both actions would be completely idiotic . In
> other words "Dropping the stellar background is as _meaningless_ for
> isolating . . . " etc.
> It makes no sense to drop the stellar background as that is how the orbital
> motion is (explicitly) detected. .
>
> >
> >> 'Direct' and 'Retrograde' have specific meanings here and it is clear
> >> that
> >> he is referring to the appearance from Earth.
> >
> > Retrogrades have a specific meaning indeed and retrogrades are not seen
> > from an orbitally moving Earth
>
> Yes they are. They are very much seen from the Earth as you acknowledge in
> your second paragraph.
>
> >,retrogrades are plotted motions seen
> > against the stellar background,The Ptolemaic astronomers concluded that
> > periodic looping motions occured in the motions of the planets against
> > a stationary Earth while Copernicus split the Earth's motions into
> > axial and orbital and concluded that the observed motions are due to a
> > faster Earth overtaking the slower moving outer planets -
>
> Indeed he did. But the retrograde motions are 'observed' which you firstly
> accept and then deny. You need to clarify the matter in your own mind.
>
> > "Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
> > entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
> > leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
> > [orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
> > shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
> > times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the centre,
> > with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth
> > repeats its circle sixteen times "
> >
> > Astronomia Nova 1609
> >
> > Again,not one individual here ,even though they call themselves
> > 'astronomers' ,has yet to affirm the Copernican insight that planetary
> > motions are seen directly from Earth,even with the time lapse footage
> > of Jupiter and Saturn before them.The Newtonian mutation of what
> > retrogrades are and how they are resolved is complete and utter
> > nonsense.
>
> But you have still not justified that statement. The 'essay' above contains
> contradictory statements as I have pointed out.
>
> Try again, but try and do it better.
>
> Or accept that you are not able to support your argument and withdraw. .

Date: 15 Oct 2006 00:06:31
From: OG
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160833297.030179.198010@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Good of you to be so fast as to pick up on my typo,I withdrew the post
> once I spotted it and replaced it with a more accurate version.
>
> If your only achievement is to spot the typo then good for you but the
> substance of the Copernican heliocentric reasoning remains unaltered -
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to move
> forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again but
> from an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
> directly around the Sun.
>
> The false and destructive Newtonian view -
>
> "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
>
> I have yet to see another participant to affirm that planetary motions
> are seen directly from Earth even with the time lapse footage before
> them.
>

You still haven't explained why Newton's statement is incorrect. I read his
statement as equivalent to yours. If it is not the same, you need to explain
why

[Oriel36]
Against the stellar background the motion of the planets appear to move
forward ,stop,go backwards (retrograde) and then move forward again

[Newton]
For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde.

No difference there.

Date: 14 Oct 2006 05:27:52
From: John Carruthers
Subject: Re: Starmapping software

> The statement by Newton is completely incorrect and can be easily seen
> to be incorrect.The only acceptable way to treat retrogrades and their
> resolution is like thus -
>
> Against the stellar background the motions of the planets are >seen<

Read "Appear".
This is a figure of speech, it is not meant to be taken literally, an
autistic could grasp this one.

>to move forward,stop,move backwards (retrograde) and then move forward
> again.From an orbitally moving Earth planetary motions are seen to move
> directly in our and their heliocentric motion around the Sun.Hence the
> gorgeous Copernican insight can now be easily understood using
> contemporary imaging -
>

Base your babbling on observation of the real universe gezza.
Align a narrow tube on the Sun at noon on a particular day, time the
realignment. Do this daily over the course of a year, you know, one
elliptical, wobbly, circumnavigation of the Sun by the Earth/moon
system.
(for this exercise ignore the minor Chandler wobbles etc)

Do the same with another tube locked in possition on a a fixed star of
your choice. Time the reapearance of the star in your tube sight.
Do this daily over the course of a year, you know, one elliptical,
wobbly, circumnavigation of the Sun by the Earth/moon system.
(for this exercise ignore the minor Chandler wobbles etc)

Use any accurate timing device you like, invent a ten hour day if you
so choose, so long as it is consistent.

Then account for the observations. No quoting, no plagiarism, no
arbitrary inventions.

JC