Have the INNER PLANETS or Stereo Behind shifted orbit?? Serious questions must be addressed!!!

you do realize that planets travel up and down (similar to a sin wave) on their way around the sun, right?

PLANETS don't orbit the Sun! Think 3D!!!

Ok, thinking 2D - orbits are not circles, why do you expect them to look simetrical? each planet has an eliptic orbit, also the plane is tiled when compared with the Sun's ecuator. Probably an accurate orbit simulator would give a hint. If not, it means the orbit is changing :))

This

It is possible that the OP is suggesting that we have been taught to believe a given set of laws; and when we perceive what we think are anomalies, we are told, "No-that is perfectly normal- according to some NEW guideline that we had no knowledge of. Plus, these orbits were calculated eons ago, by hand, and there seem to be more ?s now than ever.

And don't get me wrong- it ALWAYS depends on the math- its just that I can not remember a time when I was repeatedly told over and over that I can't trust what my eyes see.

Good lord what an ignoramus. I don't think you could pack any more wrong into that small a space without having your cranium implode.

Where to begin?

First: That isn't Venus; but not being able to identify the brightest planet in the solar system shouldn't concern an astro researcher such as you.
By that I mean an arrogant dimwit who obviously doesn't know kindergarten astro concepts and yet posts anti-science diatribes.
That is the planet Mercury, and you are right, the planets are misplaced for you since you think Mercury is Venus.

Second: The Venus you think it is isn't in SUPERIOUR conjunction. It is in INFERIOUR conjunction. You at least got it right that Venus was in front of the sun. What do you think is the definition of INFERIOUR conjunction?
Back to kindergarten: [link to en.wikipedia.org]
See how INFERIOUR is when the planet is between the viewer and the sun? An arrogant astro lecturer such as you should know these pre-school concepts before venturing out into the wild to do battle with scientists. My cat knows more science than you.

Third: Everyone, except you, knows that Venus is outpacing STEREO in its orbit so Venus during INFERIOUR transit will appear to move left to right, not right to left as your spatial confusion has it.
It is of no matter since what you are looking at isn't Venus.

That's an awful lot of flaming stupid you packed into your first few sentences.

How does it feel to know you can't identify the brightest planet and yet you make snarky anti-science posts revealing your astonishing ignorance to one and all?

I'll bet it's a special kinda' feeling, isn't it?






The planets are exactly where they are supposed to be.


R.
kOOks lie. Constantly. It's part of the job description.

Aggghhh! Beat me to it!!

Ah well, here it is anyway. Like you said, the first image isn't even Venus, it's Mercury. I stupidly took his word for it at first and spent way too much time chasing my own damn tail when the calculations came out showing that it couldn't possibly be Venus to begin with. Should have taken a second to do a quick check for which planets were actually visible first before diving headlong into the math.

It IS Mercury in the first image and it IS right where it should be. Here are the results of a first-order approximation I calculated for the apparent position of Venus and Mercury (with planetary orbital data pulled from Jean Meeus' book published 30 years ago) at that date and time as seen from STEREO-B:
[link to img5.imageshack.us]
Venus should have approximately had ecliptic coordinates of:
ecliptic longitude 149.9 degrees
ecliptic latitude -6.8 degrees
Vs the sun's apparent longitude of 154.95 degrees
So it's not Venus, that kind of angular distance would put it well out of the field of view. Mercury's ecliptic coordinates on the other hand:
ecliptic longitude 152.7
ecliptic latitude 1.7
Spreadsheet available here:
[link to dropcanvas.com]

That agrees with both Celestia set to STEREO-B's location (ecliptic grid turned on so you can compare to the numbers I just gave - it shows a geocentric ecliptic grid instead of true stereo-centric ecliptic coordinates as I calculated, but it's close enough), as well as what was actually seen:
[link to img163.imageshack.us]

The second image does show Venus, but again it's right where it should be:
[link to img94.imageshack.us]
By my calculations, the approximate ecliptic coordinates for Venus as seen from STEREO-B should have been:
ecliptic longitude 287.4
ecliptic latitude 4.4

The third image does indeed show Mercury, and it is once again where it should be:
[link to img801.imageshack.us]
By my calculations, the approximate ecliptic coordinates for Mercury as seen from STEREO-B should have been:
ecliptic longitude 209.1
ecliptic latitude 1.1

Last the OP presents a beacon image from the 23rd, which really isn't good enough quality to properly orientate relative to Celestia (no reference stars at all, just Mercury) so I won't bother wasting my time with that image, but in terms of calculating where Mercury should approximately be relative to the sun in the image it looks right to me:
longitude of the sun 341.9
Mercury:
ecliptic longitude 341.8
ecliptic latitude -1.8

The spreadsheet I just modified for this purpose is doing a first order approximation of the planets' orbits, so we're not dealing with the level of accuracy a full VSOP implementation like Celestia can yield, but for simply checking whether Mercury or Venus should appear "above the sun" in one apparition or "below the sun" in the next apparition in the STEREO-B COR2 imager, it's more than good enough for that purpose :).

Oh, and Anonymous Coward 42894794 said it "ALWAYS depends on the math" and these are far from "new guidelines." As he said, "these orbits were calculated eons ago, by hand." Well, here you go. These calculations can easily be done by hand indeed, the planetary orbital data is from a book about 30 years old (and in turn that data is taken from a book over a hundred years old by Simon Newcomb) and they show that what the OP found in these images is completely normal, if not always the planet he assumed it was lol.

Last Edited by Astromut on 07/24/2013 01:37 AM

Oh, almost forgot about the Venus transit nonsense. You're wrong about that as well op.
Thread: The path of Venus during the Venus transit was perfectly normal... and here's the proof
[link to img59.imageshack.us]

BULLSHIT Plait. The planets did shift. Into the 4th dimension on Dec 21st, 2012.

Ah, my stalker followed me over here as well. I'm not Phil plait.
Thread: Sunspot Watch - 7/7/13
Get it through your thick head.

Everyone knows you are Phil Plait.
Now get your pseudoscience out of here Plait

Prove I'm Phil Plait and prove I'm spewing pseudoscience. Op went to the Nancy Lieder school of astronomy and it looks like you may be his classmate.

Well OP? Any response?