Unexpected findings in need of an explanation (retrograde motion of Mars)

[DaveC426913]

perhaps I should start a new thread?

Hm. It is almost the same question.

Reporting to check with mods.

 

[DaveC426913]

How can a multiple (usually double, but sometimes triple) Earth-planet-star conjunction occur during a retrograde motion of the planet when the line of sight (shown in red in my animation) can only be parallel to the star's line of sight (in yellow) once during the transit?

I'm afraid I don't follow what you're asking/asserting.

Why does that create a paradox?

 

[Sylvain9595]

Why does that create a paradox?

Look at this triple conjunction of Mars with Pollux during this 2024-2025 retrogradation :

source : https://whenthecurveslineup.com/2025/01/10/2025-january-22-mars-pollux-conjunction/

To return to my highway analogy, when car B overtakes car A, there can only be one precise moment when B can observe A perfectly aligned with a given distant tree [think Pollux], even if the overtaking maneuver takes place on a curved road. Is that clearer?

 

[DaveC426913]

Clearly a multiple conjuction can occur. You provided an example.
And clearly, the passing cars analogy is flawed.

So, in answer to the question:

"How can a multiple (usually double, but sometimes triple) Earth-planet-star conjunction occur during a retrograde motion of the planet?"

The answer is: "see post 63 for an example of how".

And, to this:

"...when the line of sight (shown in red in my animation) can only be parallel to the star's line of sight (in yellow) once during the transit?"

I say: who says that must be true?

 

[DaveC426913]

Re-examining your sim.

A Mars-Pollux conjunction occurs any time red and yellow lines are parallel. Is it possible you are mispinterpeting the meaning of the red and yellow lines?

I see five oppositons with Pollux (when red and yellow lines are parallel):

Granted, only #3 is during retrograde phase. But that doesn't have to be the case. What if the retrograde phase were to span a wider arc?

Now, Mars is in conjunction with Pollux - during retrograde phase - no less than three times:

 

[DaveC426913]

"...when the line of sight (shown in red in my animation) can only be parallel to the star's line of sight (in yellow) once during the transit?"

I say: who says that must be true?

It is true at least in my animation.

(Independent of retrograde phase) I count five times in your animation when red and yellow are parallel (and therefore Mars and Pollux are in conjunction).

Is it possible you are counting only co-incident lines when you shoud be counting parallel lines? All parallel lines point to Pollux, no matter where we are in our orbit.

 

[Sylvain9595]

Clearly a multiple conjuction can occur. You provided an example.

Yes of course. My question is how the heliocentric model accounts for this observation.

And clearly, the passing cars analogy is flawed.

It is flawed only for my first question. Imagine car B overtaking car A on the inside in this turn:
View attachment 368820
Even assuming the tree is infinitely far away, is there any chance that B observes A aligned with the same tree more than once without A overtaking B after being overtaken by A, and A overtaking B a second time?

"...when the line of sight (shown in red in my animation) can only be parallel to the star's line of sight (in yellow) once during the transit?"

I say: who says that must be true?

It is true at least in my animation.

A Mars-Pollux conjunction occurs any time red and yellow lines are parallel. Is it possible you are mispinterpeting the meaning of the red and yellow lines?

I see five oppositons with Pollux (when red and yellow lines are parallel). Granted, only #3 is actually during retrograde:

How can you possibly see 3 parallel lines when there is only one precise moment when the lines can be parallel ??? For exemple, here is where the red line really is on your "conjunction n°2", as you can see they're not parallel at all:

What if the retrograde were to span a wider arc?

Now, Mars is in conjunction with Pollux - during retrograde phase - no less than three times:

It is impossible to draw such wide loops and at the same time have 3 parallels, I tried.

 

[Sylvain9595]

All parallel lines point to Pollux, no matter where we are in our orbit.

Yes, I know that.

 

[DaveC426913]

How can you possibly see 3 parallel lines when there is only one precise moment when the lines can be parallel ??? For exemple, here is where the red line really is on your "conjunction n°2", as you can see they're not parallel at all:

What do you mean? At conjunction #2, they are not only parallel, they are co-incident:

Why do you substitute your own incorrect screen shot?

 

[Sylvain9595]

What do you mean? At conjunction #2, they are not only parallel, they are co-incident:

No : in my animation, at the precise moment we see Mars positioned at "conjunction 2", the lines are not parallel as I have shown you. If "conjunction 2" had happened october 19th like it really happened, earth and mars couldn't be aligned with pollux. Lets call this image "october 19th conjonction" (prograde):

This one would be "january 22 conjonction" (retrogade, this one is possible in my animation):

And this one would be "march 31 conjunction" (prograde)

Do you see the problem now ?

 

[DaveC426913]

No : in my animation, at the precise moment we see Mars positioned at "conjunction 2", the lines are not parallel as I have shown you.

Oh. I see. Yes, I mislabeled my conjunctions. Apologies.

OK, I see three.

 

[DaveC426913]

For my records, your latest animation can be found here (so I don't have to spend ten minute looking for the link):
codepen.io/Boanerges-the-solid/pen/zxBKXoV

 

[Sylvain9595]

Why are you showing a moment when Mars is not in conjunction with Pollux?

I am illustrating the problem : october 19th is the only precise moment when mars can be viewed at that precise position in our sky and at that time the lines are no parallel (so no conjunction possible). Same thing for "march 31 conjunction".

 

[DaveC426913]

I am illustrating the problem : october 19th is the only precise moment when mars can be viewed at that precise position in our sky and at that time the lines are no parallel (so no conjunction possible). Same thing for "march 31 conjunction".

Sorry, I have to recap.

Your post 63 shows three conjunctions - one of which is during retrograde.

OK, so now I have to go all the way back and ask where you get this assertion from:

"How can a multiple (usually double, but sometimes triple) Earth-planet-star conjunction occur during a retrograde motion of the planet..."

Who says multiple conjunctions of Mars can occur during its retrograde motion? Where do they say this?


And are you certain these multiple conjunctions during retrograde can occur with Mars specifically - as opposed to some other planet, say Venus, which can have both superior and inferior conjunctions?

 

[Sylvain9595]

"How can a multiple (usually double, but sometimes triple) Earth-planet-star conjunction occur during a retrograde motion of the planet..."

My bad, I should have written : "How can a multiple (usually double, but sometimes triple) Earth-planet-star conjunction occur during a retrograde loop of the planet..." instead of "retrograde motion", I will edit that.

 

[DaveC426913]

My bad, I should have written : "How can a multiple (usually double, but sometimes triple) Earth-planet-star conjunction occur during a retrograde loop of the planet..." instead of "retrograde motion" I will edit that.

OK, so is post 63 an example of this?

 

[Sylvain9595]

OK, so is post 63 an example of this?

Yes, but triple conjonctions are very rare compared to double ones. But there is the same problem for double ones.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, but triple conjonctions are very rare compared to double ones. But there is the same problem for double ones.

OK, I feel that the problem is insufficiently defined for me to be able to address it, so I will step back and defer to others.

 

[Sylvain9595]

OK, I see three.

No, only the one in the middle is on the loop (like the real observation). The two others happen before and after the loop.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, only the one in the middle is on the loop (like the real observation). The two others happen before and after the loop.

Yes. I was just confirming that I see that.

So, the problem is still not fully defined, as I see it. Post 63 still has conditions outstanding.


Also, twice you have asked how the heliocentic model accounts for it. Is there an alternative model? Is there some doubt about the veracity of the heliocentric model?

 

[Sylvain9595]

So, the problem is still not fully defined, as I see it. Post 63 still has conditions outstanding.

I won't be able to post during the next three days but when I come back I will open a new thread with a better definition of the problem.

Also, twice you have asked how the heliocentic model accounts for it. Is there an alternative model? Is there some doubt about the veracity of the heliocentric model?

Of course there is doubt, there can not be any science without doubt. Real science should always try, by doing new experiments, to falsifie its own model. And yes, there is an alternative model I am investigating that can account for these observations, it's called the Tychos. [Link to personal theory removed by the Mentors]

 

[berkeman]

And yes, there is an alternative model I am investigating that can account for these observations, it's called the Tychos.

You are not allowed to discuss your alternative theories here at PF.

Thread is closed for Mentor review.

 

[berkeman]

Since this thread is based on the OP trying to use PF for his personal theory development, it will remain closed.

 

[PeterDonis]

I won't be able to post during the next three days but when I come back I will open a new thread with a better definition of the problem.

To add a clarification: when you do, please limit discussion to how the standard model of our solar system used by astronomers accounts for the observations. Do not mention any personal theories of yours, or the thread will be closed and you will receive a warning.

Also, I strongly suggest that you reconsider your position that the "heliocentric model" (which is somewhat of a misnomer for the actual standard model of our solar system that astronomers use, but it will do for this discussion) somehow has a problem accounting for these observations. It doesn't. You at least retreated from your initial position that all three Mars-Pollux conjunctions occurred during the actual retrograde motion of Mars (as seen from Earth)--you seem to agree now that only one of them does (which of course is obvious from the dates given in the image that was posted). But you still seem to think it's an issue that all three of them occur during "the retrograde loop" of Mars--which is a misnomer, since only part of the "loop" contains actual retrograde motion of Mars. The rest of the "loop" contains direct motion of Mars, and if you take the time to think about it, it should be obvious to you that not only are multiple conjunctions of Mars with the same star possible during periods of direct motion before and after the period of retrograde motion--they are expected. Please think carefully about that before you post a new thread.

Hint: where is Pollux in the Earth's sky while Mars executes its "retrogade loop"? We already know how the "heliocentric model" accounts for the "retrograde loop" itself. It should be obvious that it's simple for the "heliocentric model" to also account for where Pollux is in Earth's sky. So the result of putting those two things together should be obvious as well.