Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Um......Tom, we did find planets like Neptune that can't be seen with naked eye. We have also discovered very distant orbiting objects like Pluto, asteroids, dwarf planets, and comets all with telescopes. You can't those with naked eye yet we found them.Yea, 68 years of infrared astronomy and we just keep on missing it.
Who is looking for it?
No one, but is kind of odd that in all the infrared pictures taken of the sun, this object is still undiscovered.
If we could not see the stars or celestial bodies with the naked eye, and our only access to the heavens were through observatory telescopes, we would have never discovered the planets.
Hey, Tom, now is your time to make a real scientific contribution.Yea, 68 years of infrared astronomy and we just keep on missing it.
Who is looking for it?
Yea. Do you really believe that multiple observatories that operate for years and do entire surveys just keep missing objects that are large enough to block out the sun and moon?If the "dark object" also causes the lunar eclipses, then why does it not block out the stars in the sky surrounding the moon as it moves into position in front of the moon?
Apparently, this object only orbits the sun, shrouded in the sun's light in order to remain invisble to laymen eyes.
Is funny that this object is still a secret since we have in our power infrared telescopes that are able to take termal images of the celestial bodies.
Infrared observatories are only able to capture a very small section of the sky at a time when a picture is taken. Infrared telescopes don't see a large part of the sky. They are dishes which look at tiny sections of the sky, or are large deeply recessed observatory sized optical telescopes. And observatory telescopes don't "zoom out". It's like looking at the sky with a drinking straw. They are unreliable to catch something if you do not know where and when it will be.
This infrared sky map, for instance, was taken by stitching thousands of squares of sky together over a long period of time.
The only explanation in RE theory for different day lengths is an elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun. However, is this just an example of circle logic (no pun intended) or retrofitting an explanation to fit an observation?The elliptical orbit is not the explanation for different day lengths. Who has ever given that explanation? Can you link to someone who actually gives that as an explanation?
So the sun is changing it's distance from the surface of the earth as moves between the tropic of Capricorn and Cancer? Is the sun at the center of the dish?So what angle is the "dish" tilted at compared to the earth?
The tilt changes throughout the year, and I provided an illustration which shows what angles it tilts between. The apparent angles in the sky it moves between are listed in the left margin:
This "dish" is constantly tilting throughout the year, or rather wobbling, with the sun being a fixed location on that wobbling dish. This means that when the sun is low whatever is on the opposite side of the dish is high, and when the sun is high, whatever is on the opposite night side is low.
Does anyone have an idea of the difference in height between the sun's high and low periods?47 degrees.
You just stated that the "dish" was tilted. What is the dish you are are referring to in the above quote?Tom, I fully understand the change in the solar ecliptic throughout the year. I'm looking for an explanation of why then planetary ecliptic declines while the solar ecliptic inclines.
If one side of a dish is tilted downwards, the other side of the dish will be tilted upwards. If the sun is low, the planets seen at night will be high.
By what degree?Tom, I fully understand the change in the solar ecliptic throughout the year. I'm looking for an explanation of why then planetary ecliptic declines while the solar ecliptic inclines.
If one side of a dish is tilted downwards, the other side of the dish will be tilted upwards.
No. I'm not claiming that the "celestial sphere" effect is an issue of perspective. The "celestial sphere" effect happens because the brain in unable to comprehend the depth or distance of the objects.Hey Flatout, this comment applies to you, too:I don't think that sun appears to be lower on the horizon because of perspective. I believe that the angle between the sun and moon appear to not be congruent because of perspective. You seem to be implying that the sun appears to be lower because of perspective. My position is that the sun appears to be lower than the projected line of perspective when looking at the moon. The two are very different. The distance between the two objects is absolutely irrelevant. This illusion would happen if the sun was 93 million miles away or only 3,000 miles away.Quote from: Tom BishopTotally invalid video. Bad logic. The sun is a nearly steady 93 million miles away. How is it descending as it recedes from you with the same perspective mechanism as the end of a hallway?
You do realize that in order for a body to descend to perspective as it recedes from you it needs to double and quadruple and n-tuple its distance to you. Right? Don't be clueless.
You are claiming that perspective is the cause for the "celestial sphere" effect. Descent and ascent of bodies in the "celestial sphere" effect on a body 93 million miles away, caused by the mechanism of perspective, is complete baloney!
In order for a body to descend in height as it recedes from you, it must increase its distance to you by many times. This is not happening with the sun. The sun is 93 million miles away from you, under the Round Earth model, at all times.
Hey Flatout, this comment applies to you, too:I don't think that sun appears to be lower on the horizon because of perspective. I believe that the angle between the sun and moon appear to not be congruent because of perspective. You seem to be implying that the sun appears to be lower because of perspective. My position is that the sun appears to be lower than the projected line of perspective when looking at the moon. The two are very different. The distance between the two objects is absolutely irrelevant. This illusion would happen if the sun was 93 million miles away or only 3,000 miles away.Quote from: Tom BishopTotally invalid video. Bad logic. The sun is a nearly steady 93 million miles away. How is it descending as it recedes from you with the same perspective mechanism as the end of a hallway?
You do realize that in order for a body to descend to perspective as it recedes from you it needs to double and quadruple and n-tuple its distance to you. Right? Don't be clueless.
