Re: Sky and Tel, a pamphlet now, just like Canadian version of Time magazine

oriel36
> As for you Anthony,the world doesn't have that much interest
is photographs without context and things like your man on the moon
'analemma' are those things which are anti-astronomical in content and
character.

I don't see your posts directly because I lunatic-filed you loong ago.
But I saw the above quote in Mr. Ayiomamitis's reply, and it brought
the following to mind.

1) You cannot criticize Anthony's astrophotos, or anyone else's,
without offering your own astrophotos for comparison. You just can't do
that. No other comparison will do--Hubble, Keck, nothing. You must
present your own work.

2) Anthony uses a computer-controlled mount and both the software on
his computer and the software that is built into his mount work from
the a posteriori knowledge that the sidereal day has a duration of 23h
56m 4.n seconds. It is my understanding that you claim that this
knowledge is wrong. If it is wrong, how is it that Anthony (and
thousands of other amateur and professional astronomers, including your
humble servant) manages to aim his telescope at his target on the first
try, every try, night after night, month after month, year after year?
With a cumulative error of four arc-minutes per "oriel sidereal day,"
it wouldn't be long before Anthony's telescope (and mine and all the
other ) would point many degrees from his desired target--if the "oriel
sidereal day" is the real sidereal day, which I am beginning to suspect
it is not. There are many phenomena and constants in astronomy that I
cannot observe or calculate and for which I have to accept the word of
professionals. The duration of the sidereal day is kind of neat because
one can measure it for oneself without even owning a telescope. I did
the drive-off, same-star, night-to-night timing exercise when I bought
my first polar-equatorial telescope and, within the limit of my ability
to measure, which was pretty accurate, I determined the length of the
sidereal day to be 23h 56m 4.n seconds. Repeated experiments with
better and better timing devices only add decimal places to the result.
Every piece of astronomy software and every motor-driven mount I have
seen agree on the 23h 56m 4.n second figure. Where can I buy an oriel
mount and some orielware to compare to my mount and my software?

Take up birdwatching.

Why do I get the feeling that I'm watching a dodo?

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tal 2m or Explorer 150/200?
    ... I am interested in a telescope that will enable me to view planets ... >scope for photography via digicam. ... built in drives and is a steadier mount. ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • e2 Telescope Design Quitting Business Sale
    ... After 3 years of building the finest dobsonian mount telescope kits available, Eric and Eric are hanging up the shop aprons and putting away the safety glasses. ... After factoring in the general costs of running a business, we were basically only covering the materials and not making anything for our labor, which is considerable for each scope. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Good starting telescope and book for child
    ... What is the bare minimum quality of telescope I should look at (40x ... The moon came to life. ... Check that the mount is stable (tapping a leg, ... controls/knobs for moving the scope in alt and az. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Why Refractors are Better!
    ... >>> a classical telescope, and the weight would go up with the additional mirrors ... The weight issue might be ... > to mount it high enough so you've got adequate ground clearance. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Refractor vs. Reflector?
    ... a 60mm telescope from any company is ... planets, with their degree of specialization based almost entirely on ... mount that sits directly on the ground, with eyepiece height provided ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)