Re: Climate change
Sam Wormley
> How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine
> what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it
> does not cause the seasons ? .
>
It's so hard that it's wrong. The tilt of the earth's rotational
axis with respect to the ecliptic is indeed the primary cause of
seasonal change.
Climate change is something else and I refer you to links at this
URL I put together.
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Global_Climate_Change_Resources.html
Quadibloc
> A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or
> polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but
> of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the
> specific way a planet orbits the Sun.
You're partly right. If the Earth didn't orbit the Sun, but always
stayed at one part of its orbit, there would be no seasons; 'tilt' is
a static condition, and seasons are about change over the course of a
year.
But if the Earth's axis coincided with the Ecliptic pole, the
conditions would be so "Equatorial" that the seasons would not vary at
all. Given a circular orbit, though, I have to admit. There could
still be aphelion season and perhelion season giving the same
temperature changes in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres.
John Savard
Meme Mr. Mustard
Rich
> How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine
> what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it
> does not cause the seasons ? .
>
> Copernicus himself but the modified view replaces that view with
> practical observations based on planetary comparisons where the cause
> of the seasons is actually the orbital motion of the Earth and the
> isolation of that motion and its characteristics.
>
> A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or
> polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but
> of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the
> restricted to seasonal characteristics and completely at variance with
> the view of 'axial tilt to the orbital plane' or some such variation
> of that theme -
>
> http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php
>
> I am not throwing good information after the 'climate change' mob whio
> live and operate of a hyper fuss basis while not having any sense of
> what causes basic temperature fluctuations of the day/night cycle due
> to daily rotation or the seasonal cycle via orbital dynamics.
>
> Is there any sane person,who can simply work out the reasons which
> distinguish Earth from Uranus in terms of 'tilt' comparisons thereby
> determining what role rotational inclination actually serves?.
>
> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg
>
> For all the fuss over 'global warming' and whether temperature spikes
> are due to human or natural influences,until scientists explain the
> basic seasonal temperature fluctuations correctly via astronomy and
> planetary dynamics,they are being absolutely ridiculous in attempting
> to correlate carbon dioxide with minor variations in temperature.
>
> How intelligent do you need to be to understand what 'tilt' actually
> does ?.
That is presuming you believe the climate change and C02 theories and
don't realize the people behind it are nothing but a cabal of World
government socialists and envirocrackpots working on the largest plan
yet to destroy the West.
Chris.Bee
>
> That is presuming you believe the climate change and C02 theories and
> don't realize the people behind it are nothing but a cabal of World
> government socialists and envirocrackpots working on the largest plan
> yet to destroy the West.
You are much too modest, Rich. You dont need the help of anyone else.
The right wing have brought the entire world to its knees. (yet
again)
All the the envirowotsits can do for you now is to patch the gaping
holes until your lot rig the next elections. ;-)
skyguy
From what I've read of Gerald's posts on the subject of 'tilt', he has
never given any indication that he understands or even wants to know why
the earth's rotational axis remains fixed in space relative to the
distant stars, particularly Polaris. Apparently he has never had a basic
physics course which would provide the answer to that question or
perhaps in his mind it's not an issue that needs explaining. He would
most likely say that it's just the way it is. In any case, he thinks
he's the only one who knows that the seasons are caused by the earth's
fixed axis of rotation (tilt) in relation to it's orbital path around
the sun which he calls the 'orbital specific'. This produces the changes
in the path of the sun in the sky during the course of a year, resulting
in the variable length of the days, which ultimately produce the changes
in the weather that we call seasons.
Apparently this all started for him when he saw the time lapse pictures
of Uranus. As if the world was waiting for that evidence before we could
truly understand the causes of the seasons. Sadly he doesn't realize
that those pictures of Uranus only serve to confirm what has been known
for centuries about the orbital mechanics of the earth and the solar
system in general. I guess what makes this frustrating for some of us
here is the notion that we could set him straight if we had the
opportunity to sit down with him, pen and paper in hand, and walk him
through the process that leads to really understanding the subject. That
would be a far greater epiphany for him than when he first saw those
pictures of Uranus.
John Walsh
"Chris.Bee" <chr...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:0a6cfc58-82c9-4b15...@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
".....The right wing have brought the entire world to its knees. (yet
again)......"
It's the far left responsible for this, and a whole heap of other crap such
as: moral decay, religious degradation, continued economic collapse,
bankruptcy, etc. Of course, you could be a dreamer and believe Obamaeze
will fix everything.
oriel36
Don't need to consider 'climate change' as it is understood in the
media , that has the same ring to it as Newton's attempt to correlate
terrestrial ballistics directly to planetary motion by throwing the
kitchen sink at it in order to make observations fit the
conclusions.As he used the predictive Ra/Dec conventions, amounting to
inverted references for daily and orbital motions,it now amounts to
showing what a waste of time and effort that turned out to be.If
people want to be fleeced individually or nationally to the tune of
billions by believing carbon dioxide has some magic property to
control global temperature then that is none of my concern,it looks
like the attempt to extract cash the same way denominational
Christianity once used indulgences once to expunge guilt except this
21st century version is more destructive.
I can point out that by far the greatest temperature fluctuations
are the seasonal variations between a week in January/February and a
week in July/August representing the specifics of planetary
dynamics.These temperature variations are cyclical meaning that they
are supposed to be completely understood along with the variations
which occur during the day/night cycle before moving on to long term
variations or adding inputs which distinguish astronomical,terrestrial
and human influences.Ask the 'climate change' scientists what causes a
rise in temperature from January to July and they don't know or
attribute 'axial tilt' as the cause whereas the major modification and
a nuanced approach is surely understood by any reasonable person here
- that rotational inclination dictates whether a planet has Equatorial
or polar characteristics in its seasonal cycle with orbital motion and
the specifics of that motion causing the temperature fluctuation when
allied with daily rotation.
I don't think it is possible for anyone to return to 'axial tilt' as
the dynamic for seasonal changes once they see the advantages of its
actual role.In the interest of stability and to prevent the atrocious
correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide/pollution
from dominating all terrestrial and astronomical investigations,the
modification based on planetary dynamics and characteristics puts the
brakes on if only to demonstrate that the exclusion of astronomy has
terrible consequences.The problem is,as anyone familiar with the
'Pluto' disaster knows,is that there is no astronomical authority
worth speaking of.
Tell me,before everyone jumps over the carbon dioxide/global warming
precipice,would you go along with the following explanation for the
seasons ?,if you do then you belong with the opponents and proponents
of that reckless conclusion -
Martin Nicholson (NMR)
<Usual rubbish deleted>
The depth of your problem is demonstated by your inability to resist
the temptation to post minor variations of the same old material for
more than a few hours.
Please, please, seek professional help!
oriel36
> Climate change is something else and I refer you to links at this
> URL I put together.
> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Global_Climate_Change_Resources.html
Climate change indeed ! -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
I actually didn't read that until after my last response in this
thread and good to see the 21st century version of 'indulgences'
mentioned and so they should be.
Astronomers should be the first to weigh in with the arguments which
put the brakes on what is turning into a scam,not because they ruined
the normal concerns for pollution that have always existed, but that
they managed to exclude the astronomical inputs which dictate global
climate conditions.Is there any person here with a few brain cells who
realises that any attempt to consider global temperature variations
in future by any other means bar carbon dioxide will be looked on as
'bad for business' .
Push through these social policies under the umbrella of 'climate
change' (rather than pollution control that it is) and you can forget
astronomy,planetary dynamics or anything else.With no astronomical
authority in existence,the monster that is 'climate change' by
treating carbon dioxide as the global temperature dial ,nothing is
going to happen to turn this situation around even though it is,quite
surprisingly,not all that difficult.If scientists can't explain the
seasons properly then they put global climate on hold until they get
things straight - call it a triumph of science if you wish but it is
pretty much the most effective tool available .
Many here should take the words of Copernicus to heart when dealing
with the reckless conclusion based on global climate.We barely
understand most processes and the astronomical- terrestrial connection
and it is time for people to act accordingly -
". although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the
hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which
follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus,
1543 Copernicus
Chris.Bee
> It's the far left responsible for this, and a whole heap of other crap such
> as: moral decay, religious degradation, continued economic collapse,
> bankruptcy, etc. Of course, you could be a dreamer and believe Obamaeze
> will fix everything.
No words of mine will convince you of your terrifyingly skewed vision
of the world. Fortunately I don't have to make the attempt. Read the
reports of your own religio-fascist think tanks. The USS Corruption is
about to sink with major loss of life. The oil has run out and the
steering is deliberately jammed at full right turn. Obama has been
handed the sputtering torch too late to relight the boilers and the
handle is already red hot. A system propped up on slavery and stolen
natural wealth, from the rest of the world, is approaching the rapidly
calving icebergs at full tilt. A tragedy for vast numbers of ordinary
people who are chained below decks with no lifebelts. Bush deregulated
the controls on passenger numbers, crew training, safety, health and
security. All just to increase profit margins for those who were
already tax evading multi-billionaires. Just before the end the
wealthy will steal the lifeboats, will be quickly picked up and flown
to safety offshore. America will slide beneath the waves into the dark
depths of anarchy, drug gangs, tyrants and local warlords. No change
there then.
Quadibloc
> A system propped up on slavery and stolen
> natural wealth, from the rest of the world, is approaching the rapidly
> calving icebergs at full tilt.
What is your opinion about places like Canada and Australia, or places
like Denmark, Italy, or France? After all, these countries are wealthy
like the United States, not poor like China or India.
John Savard
skyguy
> How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine
> what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it
> does not cause the seasons ? .
>
> The idea of 'no tilt/no seasons' is derived by a hypothesis from
> Copernicus himself but the modified view replaces that view with
> practical observations based on planetary comparisons where the cause
> of the seasons is actually the orbital motion of the Earth and the
> isolation of that motion and its characteristics.
If the earth had no rotational inclination (tilt), it's orbital motion
around the sun would *not* produce variable seasons. That's why a tilt
(to the orbital plane) is a necessary condition for seasons to occur.
Copernicus was right, no tilt-no seasons.
>
> A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or
> polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but
> of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the
> specific way a planet orbits the Sun.The role of 'tilt' is therefore
> restricted to seasonal characteristics and completely at variance with
> the view of 'axial tilt to the orbital plane' or some such variation
> of that theme -
Guess what, practically everyone here knows that it requires a
combination of a fixed (in space) axial tilt (to the orbital plane)
*combined* with the orbital motion of the earth during the course of a
year, to produce the seasons. You must be the last one here to discover
this.
> http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php
>
> I am not throwing good information after the 'climate change' mob whio
> live and operate of a hyper fuss basis while not having any sense of
> what causes basic temperature fluctuations of the day/night cycle due
> to daily rotation or the seasonal cycle via orbital dynamics.
>
> Is there any sane person,who can simply work out the reasons which
> distinguish Earth from Uranus in terms of 'tilt' comparisons thereby
> determining what role rotational inclination actually serves?.
I guess everyone here must be sane, because we all know how to make an
accurate comparison between the earth's rotational axis and that of
Uranus. If Uranus were a terrestrial planet, it would have very extreme
seasons during an orbit of the sun because of the extreme tilt to it's
orbital plane. There really is a connection between tilt (rotational
inclination) and a planet's orbital plane. After all, the tilt angle has
to be measured in reference to something. The orbital plane is that
reference.
>
> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg
>
> For all the fuss over 'global warming' and whether temperature spikes
> are due to human or natural influences,until scientists explain the
> basic seasonal temperature fluctuations correctly via astronomy and
> planetary dynamics,they are being absolutely ridiculous in attempting
> to correlate carbon dioxide with minor variations in temperature.
>
> How intelligent do you need to be to understand what 'tilt' actually
> does ?.
Apparently at least as intelligent as you, but there are many here who
are much more so. That's why they understand much more than you do about
orbital mechanics.
Here's that nagging question again. Why does the earth's rotational axis
remain fixed in space towards the star Polaris? Why not some other
direction or star? Have you made any attempt to look it up?
oriel36
> oriel36 wrote:
> > How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine
> > what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it
> > does not cause the seasons ? .
>
> > The idea of 'no tilt/no seasons' is derived by a hypothesis from
> > Copernicus himself but the modified view replaces that view with
> > practical observations based on planetary comparisons where the cause
> > of the seasons is actually the orbital motion of the Earth and the
> > isolation of that motion and its characteristics.
>
> If the earth had no rotational inclination (tilt), it's orbital motion
> around the sun would *not* produce variable seasons. That's why a tilt
> (to the orbital plane) is a necessary condition for seasons to occur.
> Copernicus was right, no tilt-no seasons.
>
Oh brother,I could spend years answering every objection which seems
prepared to ignore the simple additional specific attached to orbital
motion which explains seasonal variations in daylight/darkness,why the
natural noon cycles vary,the seasonal disappearance of certain
constellations and all the other effects arising from the
modification.If you insist on the hypothesis of Copernicus of no tilt/
no seasons then you must be prepared to accept the full description
based on variable axial/Equatorial orientation to the central Sun -
"... the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of
days and nights would be observed. On the contrary, it would always be
either the longest or shortest day or the day of equal daylight and
darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever the character of the
season, it would remain identical and unchanged." Copernicus
The modified explanation alters the conception of 'no seasons' to
Equatorial conditions hence the degree of rotational inclination above
45 degrees indicate a planetary characteristic of Equatorial
conditions such as the Earth or below 45 degrees you have Uranus with
Polar characteristics.
So,the rotation of the Earth generates the day and night cycle and the
variations in the length of daylight/darkness is due to the orbital
motion which represents the seasonal cycle hence the seasons are not
caused by a daily rotational component such as 'tilt'.It is not the
difficult in this era when it is easy to make planetary comparisons.
>
>
> > A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or
> > polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but
> > of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the
> > specific way a planet orbits the Sun.The role of 'tilt' is therefore
> > restricted to seasonal characteristics and completely at variance with
> > the view of 'axial tilt to the orbital plane' or some such variation
> > of that theme -
>
> Guess what, practically everyone here knows that it requires a
> combination of a fixed (in space) axial tilt (to the orbital plane)
> *combined* with the orbital motion of the earth during the course of a
> year, to produce the seasons. You must be the last one here to discover
> this.
>
The seasons will occur regardless of what the rotational inclination
is,if they look out from Mars they will see the same seasonal
disappearance of constellations as Earth but this is just one
additional detail among many when people decide to escape the Ra/Dec
conventions and grow up.Operating on a level where the proper
references for daily and orbital motions are restored back to where
they were before Flamsteed is crucial to understanding planetary
dynamics and that hasn't happened yet.
I have actually very little interest in 'climate change' other than
the idea of carbon dioxide as a temperature dial is quite a reckless
conclusion by excluding everything else and especially astronomical
inputs.Because 'astronomy' as most here know it is a middle class
magnification indulgence attached to late 17th century astrology,few
would understand the powerful arguments that put the brakes on this
bandwagon which excludes any other possibilities for temperature
spikes other than carbon dioxide or human pollution.
I can't answer every objection and explaining this multiple times in
order to get people familiar with the modified explanation for the
seasons and the natural noon has gone on long enough.Instead of 'axial
tilt' as a dynamic,'tilt' takes on a much more effective role in
shaping equatorial or polar characteristics while the dynamic is
strictly an orbital component. I am not in competition with NOAA or
any other climate organisation but they are obligated to explain the
known seasonal temperature fluctuations properly,including the day/
night fluctuations before deciding that they can account for global
temperature fluctuations from other causes.
Of course,after 1905 when anyone can make up whatever story they
like ,for instance,Copernicus had specific reasons for using variable
axial/Equatorial tilt as the reason for the seasons while you just
simply ignore it ,the valuable addition of a component to orbital
motion is lost in the hubris to retain 'axial tilt'.For my part,I am
relaxed at the level I enjoy these things and that is it.
Dave Typinski
>
>On Jun 25, 11:05�pm, skyguy <sky...@bluesky.net> wrote:
>>
>> If the earth had no rotational inclination (tilt), it's orbital motion
>> around the sun would *not* produce variable seasons. That's why a tilt
>> (to the orbital plane) is a necessary condition for seasons to occur.
>> Copernicus was right, no tilt-no seasons.
>
>is
Quit being silly. Seasonal changes in climate would no longer exist.
The eccentricity in Earth's orbit only changes the solar constant by
+/- 0.11%, or +/- 1� Watts per square meter. That's nowhere near
enough to cause plainly obvious oscillatory changes in climate.
The ecliptic and the equatorial plane would be as one. The Zodiac
would be a skinny band only 14� thick, 7� above and below the
ecliptic.
There would be no solstices and every day would be an equinox. The
analemma would be reduced to a zero height East-West oscillation as
the Earth alternately lagged behind and advanced ahead of its ideal
circular orbit position.
The Sun would still move eastward against the celestial sphere;
however, with no obvious difference in local climate across the
seasons, there would be little reason for society at large to
differentiate the four quadrants of Earth's orbit.
Thus, the seasons in their most common, most useful sense would no
longer exist.
--
Dave
skyguy
> On Jun 25, 11:05 pm, skyguy <sky...@bluesky.net> wrote:
>
>>oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>>How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine
>>>what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it
>>>does not cause the seasons ? .
>>
>>>The idea of 'no tilt/no seasons' is derived by a hypothesis from
>>>Copernicus himself but the modified view replaces that view with
>>>practical observations based on planetary comparisons where the cause
>>>of the seasons is actually the orbital motion of the Earth and the
>>>isolation of that motion and its characteristics.
>>
>>If the earth had no rotational inclination (tilt), it's orbital motion
>>around the sun would *not* produce variable seasons. That's why a tilt
>>(to the orbital plane) is a necessary condition for seasons to occur.
>>Copernicus was right, no tilt-no seasons.
>
> Oh brother,I could spend years answering every objection which seems
> prepared to ignore the simple additional specific attached to orbital
> motion which explains seasonal variations in daylight/darkness,why the
> natural noon cycles vary,the seasonal disappearance of certain
> constellations and all the other effects arising from the
> modification.If you insist on the hypothesis of Copernicus of no tilt/
> no seasons then you must be prepared to accept the full description
> based on variable axial/Equatorial orientation to the central Sun -
No one is claiming that the orientation of the earth's axis varys with
respect to the distant stars. It remains fixed towards Polaris. But it
does vary in the way the axis is *presented* to the sun. This is caused
solely by the earth's orbit of the sun and it produces all the effects
which you enumerate (above), including the seasons.
>
> "... the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
> variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
> affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of
> days and nights would be observed. On the contrary, it would always be
> either the longest or shortest day or the day of equal daylight and
> darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever the character of the
> season, it would remain identical and unchanged." Copernicus
Assuming your quote of Copernicus is accurate, his only error was the
wording in the phrase 'the equator and the earth's axis must be
understood to have a variable inclination'. He was certainly smart
enough to know that the axis remains fixed in space relative to the
stars. He was trying to make the point that the axis does vary in how it
would be seen during the course of an earth year by an observer located
at the center of the solar system.
>
> The modified explanation alters the conception of 'no seasons' to
> Equatorial conditions hence the degree of rotational inclination above
> 45 degrees indicate a planetary characteristic of Equatorial
> conditions such as the Earth or below 45 degrees you have Uranus with
> Polar characteristics.
>
> So,the rotation of the Earth generates the day and night cycle and the
> variations in the length of daylight/darkness is due to the orbital
> motion which represents the seasonal cycle hence the seasons are not
> caused by a daily rotational component such as 'tilt'.It is not the
> difficult in this era when it is easy to make planetary comparisons.
Again, no one claims that the seasons are caused by (in your words) "a
daily rotational component such as 'tilt'". There is no such thing.
There is however a relative tilt between the earth's rotational axis
(fixed towards Polaris) and it's orbital plane around the sun. It is
this relative tilt which changes how the axis presents itself to the sun
as the earth orbits the sun. Thus the seasons.
skyguy
> oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
skyguy wrote:
>> If the earth had no rotational inclination (tilt), it's orbital
motion around the sun would *not* produce variable seasons. That's why a
tilt (to the orbital plane) is a necessary condition for seasons to
occur. Copernicus was right, no tilt-no seasons.
>>The seasons will occur regardless of what the rotational inclination
>>is
Well that clinches it. Gerald doesn't have a clue about orbital
mechanics and the related effects such as seasonal changes in weather
and climate zones. I'm afraid your detailed explanation (below) fell on
deaf ears. He must live in a world where the definition of the word
'tilt' is different from our universe.
oriel36
> Dave Typinski wrote:
"This is a transformative moment," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
said on the House floor. "This is a moment to create jobs in America.
This is a moment to take on at long last a defining challenge of our
time - global warming."
In direct opposition to the 'science' behind global warming which is a
reckless conclusion which excludes everything with the exception of
carbon dioxide in determining global temperature there is the time
lapse footage from the Hubble telescope and other sets of images
which makes a mockery of computer modelling -
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg
The optical illusion that the rings are turning while maintaining a
constant orientation in space is due to the specific way a planet
orbits the Sun therefore the dynamic behind astronomical seasonal
changes is found in the orbital motion of the Earth and not its 'axial
tilt'.
I do not mind if people are willing to empty their pockets to 'combat'
and 'fight' global warming by imagining there is some idealised
climate to which humans should influence the planet but the 'fight' is
a phony one invented in people's head's and using computer
modelling,the same process that almost destroyed the stability of the
financial system *.
I do mind that once this Co2/Global warming correlation becomes a
money generating fixed feature ,it will be impossible to work with all
the other inputs such as solar and planetary dynamics as we become the
first race in history to view the planet through the eyes of
pollution.Climate is being processed through people who don't
understand the dynamics behind global climate and it is seen in all
explanations for the 'seasons' based on a view of Copernicus that now
needs to be completely modified for 21st century concerns.
This is important and the usenet is the only genuine means at the
moment to demonstrate just how limited knowledge of global climate
actually is insofar as the dynamics behind the huge seasonal
temperature fluctuations is not understood properly in terms of global
climate or hemispherical weather patterns .The wider population does
not know just how weak the arguments for CO2/Global warming
correlation actually are but they are certainly going to pay for this
'science' and it can all be returned to an open debate by focusing on
what causes the seasons.
Now,I have said enough to you on this matter and stick with 'axial
tilt to the orbital plane ' if that is all you can manage,the actual
dynamic is in the specifics of orbital motion.
* " The market was being run by mathematicians that didn’t know
financial markets. And you keep hearing, you know, god, that event
should only happen once every hundred years, according to my model.
But those every hundred years events are coming along every two or
three years, which should raise some questions." Paul Vocker
Martin Nicholson (NMR)
<Endlessly repeated material deleted>
You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor
variations of the same material again and again and again.
I simply don't believe that there are not more constructive uses you
could make of your time. If you **really** believed what you keep
posting you would arranged for it to be published in a far more
appropriate place.
Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?
oriel36
I have the luxury of doing peer review retroactively and my findings
are as straightforward as they are important.Nobody checked to see if
Flamsteed's assertion for constant daily rotation using the return
of a star stands up to scrutiny based on inverting the references for
daily and orbital motions,considering Newton built empiricism and his
terrestrial ballistics/planetary motion on that framework and
conclusion,the validity of the latter depends on the former.
Peer review to your heart's content,with an error of the magnitude
existing at the core of planetary dynamics,specifically a false
conception rooted to the value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds at
variance with planetary shape and rotational characteristics contained
in the reasoning behind the 24 hour/360 degree value,anything relating
to planetary dynamics and cosmological structure is in a catastrophic
state whether men choose to affirm it or not.
The lessons of Piltdown man apply here to a large degree to the
sidereal time vs solar time/analemma hoax -
"The [Piiltdown] hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the
scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining
and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific
interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends
to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further
reconsideration."
http://www.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html
How a race ended up not knowing how long it takes the planet to turn
once is a remarkable story in itself outside the technical issues
which make it 24 hours exactly.The failure to pick up on the error or
rather,to model planetary motion using timekeeping averages has its
parallels today as the same guys go about modelling everything with
computers. Flamsteed is allowed his mistake hence if all share the
consequences of it then so do we share in expunging it or at least
those who are capable of realising the importance of the matter.
It is no mean thing,even in this information saturated era,to express
the wrong value for the rotation of the Earth in its daily cycle for
it reflects not just the value itself but the reasoning that arrives
at it.I have done my part on the usenet where the messages can be
washed away within a few days leaving no trace of my participation
thereby giving people plenty of freedom to act responsibly for a
change and do their best to raise the standard of astronomy to where
it once existed.
As for you and variable stars,I was working on these things back in
1990 in terms of volume/density ratios and luminosity variations,even
have a copyright (the only one I have) on the geometry of stellar
processes in terms of enegy efficiency and a a multi-stage stellar
evolutionary process based on two large external rings and a smaller
intersecting smaller ring.When you work on these things alone you get
the private satisfaction of seeing the images 4 years later when
Sn1897a went Supernova -
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/pic/sn1987a.gif
Natural and celestial processes are the most efficient in terms of
energy extraction and creation hence my contribution to an alternative
energy scaffolding is to point to the geometry of stellar evolutionary
processes contained in the images above,it has been a private work for
20 years and that is the way it will stay.
You collect variable stars like observational trinkets and good for
you if that is all you can manage but some others when given a piece
of information can work with it and see posibilities and connections
the way astronomers once did.The cruelty of being stuck with late 17th
century astrological conceptions you may never know but even when
proposed as an observational Ra/Dec convenience,people still want this
timekeeping average to reflect planetary dynamics and celestial
structure.
If you really wish to make a difference then post your own original
material rather than being a nuisance.
wsne...@hotmail.com
As far as Kelleher is concerned, he has no peers.
oriel36
What I see are guys who are firmly rooted in an error in the late 17th
century as a launchpad for Newton's attempt to bypass intuitive or
contemplative astronomy,as Kepler called it -
"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets and the record
of their motions is especially the task of the practical and
mechanical part of astronomy; to discover their true and genuine path
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler
Newton goes straight from Ra/Dec conventions into modelling by
distorting the resolution for retrogrades which comprise of the bulk
of astronomical methods and insights based on direct planetary
comparisons -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton
Talk about loading the dice !,the truth is that a person today,with
the aid of time lapse footage can make sense of apparent motions such
as retrogrades,the seasons,the day and night cycle or any other
astronomical observation via planetary dynamics so Newton is talking
rubbish,as usual.
It is not that I have no peers,I just haven't found people who
actually like astronomy or much else for that matter,the people who
are into magnification appear to have no astronomical sense of context
and especially planetary dynamics and have an aversion for intuitive
intelligence, matters of faith,history and just good old fashioned
common sense.I truly believe that given a chance or a choice,people
would much prefer to act with the best interests of humanity in mind
but that is not happening here,this reliance on the 'scientific
method' mantra is choking off genuine avenues of discussion other
than overheated opinions of the speculative kind.
Again,if I ever find somebody who actually is excited with what
contemporary tools and imaging can achieve I will then consider an
authority in existence but nothing indicates this even with important
matters on the table.
.
Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong
and only abuse him.
You repeat the same thing to him again and again and again and tell
people to ignore him because all he does is repeat. I think you are
jealous. People completely ignore your posts but they talk to him.
I have seen you say all he does is cut and paste the same old
material.
Well I looked at some of your "peer review" papers. Most of them are
just in hobbyist amateur web journals and not in peer reviewed
scientific journals at all. They are difficult to read sometimes with
the text being very randomly jumbled up. Then I followed some of your
paper references to earlier papers which are also in the hobbyist
magazines and found out why. You mostly cut and paste from the text
and references of other articles by other people and do nothing new
yourself to explain the theories or explain what you are doing.
Sometimes whole sentences can be seen to be cut and paste.
Gerald at least uses cut and paste to mix up his own original idea.
Even if that idea is unscientific and a bit strange at least it is
his. All you do is attack him and abuse him and not his ideas. Your
own peer review work is just in little amateur journals on the web and
cut and paste of earlier work done by others.
I think you are just jealous of him. You repeat time and again that
people should ignore him but they already do ignore you. Lots of
people talk to him but very few talk to you. If you abuse Gerald some
one might talk to you so you repeat the abuse time and again with the
same message.
Well, Gerald, you keep doing it if you want at least it is your own.
Not like Mad Man Martin The Troll King who uses cut and paste of web
material and other hobbyist work and when that is ignored runs to
insult you and the Einstein hating dude and the Mars fossil dude
hoping someone will talk to him by joining in on the insults.
If Martin does not want to listen to you there are filters and mail
blockers. He has to be hateful to you and reply every time you start
a thread only because he is jealous of people talking to you instead
of to him. Ignore him. If you did not reply to him he would have
nearly no one talking to him.
Tell him to rotate.
Best Regards
George
.
Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong
and only abuse him.
nearly no one talking to him. I can believe he has nothing better to
do with his time.
.
Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong
and only abuse him.
Tell him to rotate.
Best Regards
George
.
Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong
.
Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong
Dave Typinski
>
>Well that clinches it. Gerald doesn't have a clue about orbital
>mechanics and the related effects such as seasonal changes in weather
>and climate zones. I'm afraid your detailed explanation (below) fell on
>deaf ears. He must live in a world where the definition of the word
>'tilt' is different from our universe.
He lives in a world where several things are different.
He believes his intuition is far more enlightening than basic math and
science. He cannot imagine how his intuition could be wrong,
primarily due to his inabilities to do math and imagine more than one
discrete motion at a time.
As such, he really does live in Hell, a world in which God and all the
monsters under his bed have the same factual basis as the rising of
the Sun. Medieval Europe, pretty much.
How a guy from the Middle Ages wrangled access to the internet escapes
me. Maybe he's really an alchemist who unwittingly conjured up a
temporal displacement field and a usenet account.
Or perhaps he's the first alchemist to accidentally make LSD, the rest
of us being, rather disturbingly, nothing more than a hallucination.
--
Dave
wsne...@hotmail.com
Kelleher's mind "blue-screened" long ago.
Sam Wormley
>
> Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once....
Why tell when we can make a direct measurement? Direct observation
trump poor reasoning every time.
Bring your stop watch and together we will time the 360° rotation
of the earth -- and verify it to be 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me
know if you need airfare.
Quadibloc
<martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?
He knows perfectly well that the scientific community is dominated by
empiricists who have fallen for Flamsteed's mistake, hook, line, and
sinker!
In any case, he doesn't even _claim_ to be a scientist - merely an
ordinary lay person who is seeing what should be as obvious as the
nose on one's face to any other ordinary person, particularly with
the benefits of modern imaging.
So his failure to submit a paper to an astronomical journal is not
because he knows, deep down in his heart of hearts that he's wrong.
(Even if we might wonder for other reasons that this just might be the
case.) It's because he doesn't have a big technical argument to
present. His message is very simple - the Emperor Newton has no
clothes! So, he figures that if he explains the very obvious in a
forum read by ordinary people - who haven't had their minds
irretrievably warped by a scientific education - _somebody_ might get
it, and be able to explain it more clearly than he can, in language
the scientific community will have no choice but to accept!
This is a mistaken dream on his part, because he really is just plain
wrong, in a simple manner that's obvious even to people who haven't
mastered the intricacies of calculus. But however false his world view
may be, attempting peer-reviewed publication really isn't an act
consistent with that view, so he can hardly be faulted for that
omission.
Someday, if he ever gets his wish that there'll be an *authority* to
keep science from straying into misguided paths, we'll celebrate St.
Severinus Boethius' Day on October 23rd, and relax with a nice game of
Rithmomachy...
http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo0107.htm
John Savard
Quadibloc
> If you really wish to make a difference then post your own original
> material rather than being a nuisance.
Unfortunately, few of us here can be quite as original as you.
John Savard
Quadibloc
For that would work, he would have to agree to your *definition* of
"turn once" wherein the return of a star (which he acknowledges takes
place in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds) corresponds to the Earth
turning through 360 degrees.
So what is needed is not a new observation, but rather a way to
convince him that there is no reasonable and meaningful way to view
the Earth's rotation with respect to the "mean sun" as its real
rotation. We have the natural noon cycle, as he calls it, that
incorporates the Equation of Time, and we have the uniform rotation
with respect to the stars, and that is it.
Of course, since he writes of the "analemma hoax", it could be that he
does not seek to claim that the Earth has a motion which corresponds
to 24 hours of uniform mechanical clock time, but instead that he sees
the natural noon cycle as the Earth's true rotation.
John Savard
oriel36
That value created an overheated system from the late 17th century to
1904 as they tried to escape or find away around the elaborate scheme
which Newton created by using a modelling system (absolute space)
based on observed motions (relative motions) while retaining a common
astrological framework otherwise known as the Equatorial coordinate
system.
The inverted reference system for daily and orbital motions based on
timekeeping averages is under discussion by Mach in the pages above
is actually the fictional system yet the purpose is not to get lost in
the forest of different associations or the crosscurrents of
manipulation that Isaac used to diminish astronomy and promote his
experimental agenda but to demonstrate how modern images changes
things.
http://ealdent.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/formalhaut_b.jpg
Whereas Newton created 'absolute space',a byword for modelling, by
trying to obliterate planetary comparisons and replace it by directly
appealing to Ra/Dec conventions,today dynamicists can see a solar
system in motion such as the Formalhaut system thereby disproving this
false absolute/relative space which does not anticipate what modern
imaging can actually do -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses." Newton
Instead of this unrelenting hostility,it should be an easier task to
explain exactly where Newton is getting his absolute/relative time and
space from,how it relates to the early 20th century concepts,how it
relates back to the antecedent astronomical methods and insights and
ultimately how to open up the avenues again for productive work.
You ain't going to do anything by timing the return of a star using a
24 hour average and then concluding that planetary dynamics can be
explained that way no more than you can look out your window and
conclude that the Earth is flat by looking at a local piece of
ground.
.
<martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?
Are these two papers by Martin in an amateur hobbyist electronic
periodical what Martin means by "peer review"?
http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej87.shtml
http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej92.shtml
These two papers contain fine examples of quack science. The author
shows that he has no idea what O-C is. He says the published
ephemerises are wrong but does not give a new ephemeris. This is
because you can not give a sensible new ephemeris from two consecutive
eclipses. For the same reason you can not use two solitary
consecutive eclipses to show another ephemeris to be wrong. Only the
publishing of the measurements has any meaning, if they can be
believed to have been done properly by some one who then talks
gibberish in the rest of the articles.
O-C just does not work that way.
He also makes a sign mistake in one of the formulas in at least one of
the papers. This then makes the result in that paper wrong. He can
not even do arithmetic.
If this is what Martin means by peer review then Gerard should
condense his theories into a small article and send them to this
electronic periodical and not be afraid of being rejected. If the two
papers above are examples of this peer review then quack science is
quite welcome.
Best regards
George
Quadibloc
> Instead of this unrelenting hostility,it should be an easier task to
> explain exactly where Newton is getting his absolute/relative time and
> space from,how it relates to the early 20th century concepts,how it
> relates back to the antecedent astronomical methods and insights and
> ultimately how to open up the avenues again for productive work.
It is true that the stars have proper motion. These motions are slow,
however, so it is valid to use the stars as an approximation to a
static frame of reference. We still see constellations in the sky that
were given names by the ancient Greeks.
> You ain't going to do anything by timing the return of a star using a
> 24 hour average and then concluding that planetary dynamics can be
> explained that way no more than you can look out your window and
> conclude that the Earth is flat by looking at a local piece of
> ground.
Our mechanical clocks split time up into uniform periods, forcing us
to average the length of a solar day, which varies according to the
Equation of Time, so that we can use a mechanical clock for daily
timekeeping - because that's the way mechanical systems behave. A
clock minute is the same to a clock whether it is day or night, summer
or winter. Since the mechanical laws work according to this uniform
time scale, if one seeks to explain the motions of the planets
mechanically, we would use this time scale as well. And this
explanation is successful; the return of a star is uniform according
to mechanical clock time, Kepler's equation can be used to predict the
motion of a body in an elliptical orbit, and further elaborations let
us see the small effects due to the gravitational influences of the
planets on each other (perturbations).
Perturbations in the orbit of Uranus are what let astronomers know in
which part of the sky to look for Neptune, if you want proof we are on
the right track, and not derailed as you claim.
So we have indeed done something; we have done a great deal using
mechanical time as our basis for studying the motions of the planets.
You may hold a grudge against Laplace because he was an avowed
atheist, but that is your problem.
John Savard
skyguy
At this point I would be elated if he would explain with a few words,
(one particular word will do) why the earth's rotational axis remains
fixed in space towards Polaris. That would be a ground breaking
achievement for him. I can't imagination anyone learning about the
orbital mechanics of the solar system not asking themselves why the
rotational axis of the planets remain fixed in their respective
directions to the stars as they orbit the sun. Perhaps his intuition
tells him that it's a non issue and doesn't need to be explored.
I remember when I was a kid learning about the solar system and the
causes of the seasons on the earth, thinking it was odd that the earth's
axis was tilted but it didn't keep one pole tilted towards the sun
throughout it's yearly orbit. It seemed more intuitive to me that the
axis remain fixed to the sun rather than the distant stars. Of course if
this were true, there wouldn't be any seasons as we know them now, just
a range of climate zones. It would be a more extreme case than the earth
having no tilt at all. Gerald likes to use the very extreme case of
Uranus with it's almost parallel axis to it's orbital plane but he
apparently doesn't wonder why it remains that way.
I learned later that the earth's axis would have to precess over the
period of a year to keep it aligned with the sun. Most of us know this
would be a violation of a particular property of rotating bodies but
Gerald doesn't seem to care. A 'real' astronomer would have done some
research on the subject. As for Gerald, nada.
.
> <Endlessly repeated material deleted>
>
> You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor
> variations of the same material again and again and again.
The more I look into this the funnier it gets. Funny hilarious and
funny sick.
http://groups.google.com/group/aavsodatasection/browse_thread/thread/1a8ee3c10ef70f73
Even in variable star work Martin is ignored. He offers his expert
knowledge probably from his many famous projects that he keeps
mentioning and no one has ever heard of even out of peer review.
There are links to them on usenet spammed by him over many groups and
all with very few replies. Less replies than Gerard gets and Gerard
does not only receive abuse but some real replies and advise.
When Martin offers his help in that thread there is no answer but an
answer for a later message from another arrives.
Go Gerard! He is simply just jealous that you get all this attention
and he gets ignored.
usenet looks to be just a home for cyber bullies who can not get any
attention elsewhere and mad theories.
Pity.
Disappointed.
George
oriel36
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > oriel36 wrote:
>
> >> Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once....
>
> > Why tell when we can make a direct measurement? Direct observation
> > trump poor reasoning every time.
>
> > Bring your stop watch and together we will time the 360° rotation
> > of the earth -- and verify it to be 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me
> > know if you need airfare.
>
> At this point I would be elated if he would explain with a few words,
> (one particular word will do) why the earth's rotational axis remains
> fixed in space towards Polaris.
You want to be elated then grow up,realise that the 24 hour
timekeeping average is a product of natural noon and the daily cycle
where the natural cyclical variations are evened out against the
orbital cycle -
"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a
day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the
same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And
this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches
are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute
shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must
needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun,
or are reckon'd according to its Motion." Christian Huygens
If you want to be really elated,then you find out that the same
Equation of Time facility which keeps the averages 24 hour days
ticking over - Monday into Tuesday into Wednesday ect ,also keeps the
daily cycle constant at 24 hours.As the 24 hour averages is weighed
against the orbital cycle,it also means daily rotation is considered
constant with the inequalities in natural noon due to orbital dynamics
and characteristics.
A person who cannot grasp the basic references for the daily cycle and
how the variations in the natural noon cycle correlate with 24 hour/
360 degrees and the information which contains planetary shape and
rotational characteristics is no teacher and no astronomer - period !.
That would be a ground breaking
> achievement for him. I can't imagination anyone learning about the
> orbital mechanics of the solar system not asking themselves why the
> rotational axis of the planets remain fixed in their respective
> directions to the stars as they orbit the sun.
I feel you are all behaving like spoilt children which is why it is
becoming unbearable here.
The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it
shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a
24 hour timekeeping average within the framework of the 365/366 day
calendar system.Until you come to terms with the original references
for daily and orbital motions you will not know why inverting them as
Flamsteed did,does so much damage.
Quadibloc
> The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it
> shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a
> 24 hour timekeeping average within the framework of the 365/366 day
> calendar system.Until you come to terms with the original references
> for daily and orbital motions you will not know why inverting them as
> Flamsteed did,does so much damage.
The return of a star being constant, in units of time derived from a
mechanical clock, shows that _something_ about the Earth's motion can
be naturally measured by mechanical clocks.
Since a mechanical clock is a simple system, using the simple motion
of the Earth as a starting point does not do "damage", it gives us a
solid place to stand to begin explaining the complexities of the
natural noon cycle, which has the variability of the Equation of Time
in it.
If we combine the Earth's orbital motion with this view of the Earth's
rotation, we see how the Earth's orbital motion yields the Equation of
Time.
Yes, our customary unit for the dials of mechanical clocks comes from
averaging the solar day. This is a convenience. But we could have
started with a timekeeping unit based on a pendulum clock with a
pendulum exactly one foot long, and found the return of a star was
constant by such a clock - so your apparent objection that the solar
day must be the starting point, and going from the average of the
solar day to the return of a star and then going back to explain the
solar day from it is circular reasoning is not really valid.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> and Gerard
> does not only receive abuse but some real replies and advise.
But does he make use of the real replies and advice that he gets? Does
he heed them at all?
John Savard
palsing
> A person who cannot grasp the basic references for the daily cycle and
> how the variations in the natural noon cycle correlate with 24 hour/
> 360 degrees and the information which contains planetary shape and
> rotational characteristics is no teacher and no astronomer - period !.
But... but... but... this EXACTLY describes you! You just cannot grasp
the basic reference for the daily cycle, you cannot grasp the concept
of frames of reference, you cannot grasp the concept of the Sidereal
day, or the analemma, or a score of other well-established truths
about celestial mechanics. It is YOU who is no teacher and no
Astronomer in these forums... and everyone knows this but you -
period!
> I feel you are all behaving like spoilt children which is why it is
> becoming unbearable here.
Well, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen... I for one
would not miss you at all, because you are apparently unteachable, you
hate being corrected, you are always defensive and argumentative. Your
arguments are weak and I find myself disappointed by your consistent
failure to follow through on any promising lines of inquiry. You
repeat yourself over and over again. You have been given detailed
explanations about how and why you are wrong, but you choose to view
any peer evaluation with cold disdain. I can't remember a single
instance where you have acknowledged or otherwise thanked anyone here
for teaching you something you didn't already know.
In the end, there is not much to be gained be trying to teach a pig to
sing, it just annoys the pig and wastes everyone else's time.
> The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it
> shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a
> 24 hour timekeeping average within the framework of the 365/366 day
> calendar system.
So... what DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 tell you? It
certainly must mean something, doesn't it? It doesn't have anything at
all to do with the 24 hour solar day except for the similarity in
length. If the Earth was in a much smaller orbit, for example, and
would therefore move faster along that orbit, then the Sidereal Day
and the Solar Day would not be so comparable in length. Think about
it.
"Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, but he who hates
correction is stupid."
- King Solomon
\Paul A
oriel36
I have seen seen such hatred directed against the most basic of all
facts that are humanly possible to consider - how long does it take
the Earth to turn once even when the daily cycle of day/night is based
on rotation to the central Sun with noon as the benchmark.The
information contained in the 24 hour value for rotation through 360
degrees contains all the characteristics of shape and rotation -
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html
It was never a question of convincing people of this nightmare but
actually finding people who can actually read and interpret the
correct references for daily and orbital motions that do not have the
Nazi taint *,as though Huygens never existed nor Copernicus,Kepler and
Galileo except as props for a fictional history that supports
empiricism.
What must people have to do when they spin a world globe through 360
degrees and watch the 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour longitude
meridians follow suit and still come to the wrong conclusion ? -
http://homepages.ius.edu/PGALVIN/lat_long/Geographic%20Grid_files/meridian.jpg
The astronomical equivalent of 2=2 = 5 is the 23 hour 56 min 04 second
value for daily rotation through 360 degrees and the reasoning behind
it and should anyone feel disgusted with themselves for supporting
this timekeeping average which cannot be used for explaining planetary
dynamics,then the only comparable group I see mentioned in a similar
vain are actually the Nazi-
* "Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell
I am called mad for believing that the Earth turns once in 24 hours
and especially with all the history behind it and somehow there would
have to be a few people that are aware that something is chronically
wrong to disturb this most basic of all astronomical and human facts.I
do not think you are mad for believing the sidereal time value,just do
not have the astronomical feel with deal with the matter and get rid
of this nauseating tendency to make up observations to suit
conclusions and that is where the real insanity exists.
palsing
> On Jun 29, 6:06 pm, palsing <pals...@harris.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 7:44 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it
> > > shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a
> > > 24 hour timekeeping average within the framework of the 365/366 day
> > > calendar system.
>
> > So... what DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 tell you? It
> > certainly must mean something, doesn't it? It doesn't have anything at
> > all to do with the 24 hour solar day except for the similarity in
> > length. If the Earth was in a much smaller orbit, for example, and
> > would therefore move faster along that orbit, then the Sidereal Day
> > and the Solar Day would not be so comparable in length. Think about
> > it.
>
> > "Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, but he who hates
> > correction is stupid."
> > - King Solomon
>
> > \Paul A
>
> I have seen seen such hatred directed against the most basic of all
> facts that are humanly possible to consider - how long does it take
> the Earth to turn once even when the daily cycle of day/night is based
> on rotation to the central Sun with noon as the benchmark.The
> information contained in the 24 hour value for rotation through 360
> degrees contains all the characteristics of shape and rotation -
>
>
> It was never a question of convincing people of this nightmare but
> actually finding people who can actually read and interpret the
> correct references for daily and orbital motions that do not have the
> Nazi taint *,as though Huygens never existed nor Copernicus,Kepler and
> Galileo except as props for a fictional history that supports
> empiricism.
>
> What must people have to do when they spin a world globe through 360
> degrees and watch the 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour longitude
> meridians follow suit and still come to the wrong conclusion ? -
>
>
> The astronomical equivalent of 2=2 = 5 is the 23 hour 56 min 04 second
> value for daily rotation through 360 degrees and the reasoning behind
> it and should anyone feel disgusted with themselves for supporting
> this timekeeping average which cannot be used for explaining planetary
> dynamics,then the only comparable group I see mentioned in a similar
> vain are actually the Nazi-
>
> * "Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
> truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
> nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
> not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
> an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
> two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
> frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell
>
> I am called mad for believing that the Earth turns once in 24 hours
> and especially with all the history behind it and somehow there would
> have to be a few people that are aware that something is chronically
> wrong to disturb this most basic of all astronomical and human facts.I
> do not think you are mad for believing the sidereal time value,just do
> not have the astronomical feel with deal with the matter and get rid
> of this nauseating tendency to make up observations to suit
> conclusions and that is where the real insanity exists.
You never answered the question - no surprise there - that being
"what significance DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 have?"
Clearly it must mean something... even to you.
"The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most
that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one
delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked..."
- H.L. Mencken
\Paul A
oriel36
It takes two qualifiers,both based on timekeeping averages,to explain
the constant return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.The
value means nothing in terms of planetary dynamics no more than the
wandering 'analemma' Sun does based on the average 24 hour day,it does
show the danger of using timekeeping averages to model planetary
dynamics and solar system and universal structure while as an
observational convenience in its Ra/Dec mode,it is excellent.
There are excellent tutorials giving the basic outlines which links
clocks to the daily cycle and planetary geometry and geography even if
they do not get into the type of detail which Huygens goes into or my
additions explaining the planetary dynamics behind the natural noon
variations -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE
Most here probably consider themselves intelligent but in this matter
I have yet to see anything but a sort of indoctrination.Now,it is not
the value but the actual means by which the 24 hour/360 degree value
is arrived at in order to move the material into a more productive
mode.
Sincerely,if you wish to consider me mad for believing the Earth turns
once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour then leave it at that,all the
historical and technical details support the reasoning behind that
value while the 'sidereal time' has a definite beginning with
Flamsteed.
> "The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most
> that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one
> delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked..."
> - H.L. Mencken
>
> \Paul A- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quadibloc
> It takes two qualifiers,both based on timekeeping averages,to explain
> the constant return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.The
> value means nothing in terms of planetary dynamics no more than the
> wandering 'analemma' Sun does based on the average 24 hour day,it does
> show the danger of using timekeeping averages to model planetary
> dynamics and solar system and universal structure while as an
> observational convenience in its Ra/Dec mode,it is excellent.
It's true the Sun doesn't have a real motion corresponding to the
analemma. It would, however, have to have such a motion if the Earth
rotated once in an average 24 hour day.
I've pointed out the flawed logic behind your "two qualifiers"
statement - you may think that astronomers are using circular
reasoning, but they could have started with a mechanical clock whose
unit of time had no relationship to the day. So the dependence on the
timekeeping average of the solar day is only illusory.
If people consider you "mad", it is not because you find the idea that
the Earth rotates in 23 hours and 56 minutes, instead of in 24 hours,
to be strange. Many people find it strange at first when introduced to
astronomy. But your unwillingness to accept simple and patient
explanations, to engage in substantive discussion, your determination
that you must know better than generations of people the world has
recognized as astronomers... these are the things that truly leave you
open to criticism.
John Savard
palsing
> Sincerely,if you wish to consider me mad for believing the Earth turns
> once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour then leave it at that,all the
> historical and technical details support the reasoning behind that
> value while the 'sidereal time' has a definite beginning with
> Flamsteed.
I've told you many times before, I fully agree with you that the Earth
turns 15 degrees per hour each 24 hours, totaling 360 degrees, WITH
RESPECT TO THE SUN. We do not disagree here. Flamsteed knew this, too,
but he also noted that with respect to the stars the rotation only
took 23:56:04. Both observations are legitimate because they reference
different frames. What is so hard to understand here? There is really
nothing strange about these observations, nothing mystical or magical,
they are what they are, and the subsequent model that was created to
explain these timings does a magnificent job.
Back to basics for you.
“Careful. We don't want to learn from this.”
- Calvin & Hobbes
\Paul A
Dave Typinski
>
>Back to basics for you.
>
>�Careful. We don't want to learn from this.�
>- Calvin & Hobbes
He might have to learn calculus first. ;-)
http://pds6.egloos.com/pds/200710/08/67/e0016867_4709abda0fb5b.gif
--
Dave
oriel36
> On Jun 29, 11:42 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Sincerely,if you wish to consider me mad for believing the Earth turns
> > once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour then leave it at that,all the
> > historical and technical details support the reasoning behind that
> > value while the 'sidereal time' has a definite beginning with
> > Flamsteed.
>
> I've told you many times before, I fully agree with you that the Earth
> turns 15 degrees per hour each 24 hours, totaling 360 degrees, WITH
> RESPECT TO THE SUN.
That is incorrect,the natural noon cycles are unequal and there is no
external reference for independent daily rotation through 360 degrees
in 24 hours,it is a quirk of how the average 24 hour day is transfered
to daily rotation as a constant after the Equation of Time is applied
to natural noon as one 24 hour day turns into the next 24 hour day
then so is rotation kept constant.
I am satisfied that the message is finally getting through where it
matters and can leave you and the rest to sort things out among
yourselves in creating whatever story you like based on 'sidereal
time'.
> \Paul A
Quadibloc
> That is incorrect,the natural noon cycles are unequal and there is no
> external reference for independent daily rotation through 360 degrees
> in 24 hours,
Precisely. But there is an external reference for independent daily
rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
So we think it makes abundant sense to start with that.
John Savard
Sam Wormley
>
> That is incorrect,the natural noon cycles are unequal and there is no
> external reference for independent daily rotation through 360 degrees
> in 24 hours,it is a quirk of how the average 24 hour day is transfered
> to daily rotation as a constant after the Equation of Time is applied
> to natural noon as one 24 hour day turns into the next 24 hour day
> then so is rotation kept constant.
>
> I am satisfied that the message is finally getting through where it
> matters and can leave you and the rest to sort things out among
> yourselves in creating whatever story you like based on 'sidereal
> time'.
>
Speaking of sorting out, Gerald, bring your stop watch and together
Quadibloc
> Speaking of sorting out, Gerald, bring your stop watch and together
> we will time the 360° rotation of the earth -- and verify it to be
> 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me know if you need airfare.
Here's a simpler question for him. Does the Moon rotate?
John Savard
Dave Typinski
Oooh, hey, that's a good one.
He will of course neither answer with a yes or a no nor make any
meaningful claims at all about the Moon's rotation or orbit.
Guaranteed or your money back.
--
Dave
oriel36
Well Sam,for a guy who was honest enough to come out and say that the
Equation of Time does not have any links with the daily cycle says
more about the other people in this forum than it does about you -
> Rotation of bodies, including the Earth has nothing to do with the
> equation of time. The Equation of time deals with the "solar day" and
> elliptical orbit of the earth about the sun.... totally independent
> of the measure of rotation of the earth. - Sam Wormley
The Earth turns at 69.17 miles every 4 minutes at the Equator and
turning with a slower speed towards the geographical poles,it is so
fundamental and enjoyable that I welcome any of those websites which
show that if you turn a world globe once,you will turn 1 hour through
15 degrees and 24 hours through 360 degrees -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html
I don't really consider you or anyone else anything at the moment,only
unbearable for doing what you do for no good reason other than you
have an indoctrinated story built up in your head.The spirit of a
nation is about individual freedom to do your best,not the
indoctrinated ideologies which condition things to a dull and dour
consensus which is why all the empiricists here detest faith and
intuitive intelligence which balances the spirit of an individual with
the productive background of a nation.
I don't appeal to you nor do I mind if you believe the 'sidereal time'
expresses daily rotation ,the great timekeeping system which links the
daily cycle with 24 hours is just one of those enjoyable things that
does not require too much effort to see how the pieces fit together
yet get it wrong and you lose planetary dynamics and much else.It is a
matter of finding people who like using modern imaging and can work
with planetary dynamics and cast a brief gaze at the amazing wordplay
and astrological framework of the last century.
Sam Wormley
> On Jun 30, 3:11 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Speaking of sorting out, Gerald, bring your stop watch and together
>> we will time the 360° rotation of the earth -- and verify it to be
>> 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me know if you need airfare.
>
> Well Sam,for a guy who was honest enough to come out and say that the
> Equation of Time does not have any links with the daily cycle says
> more about the other people in this forum than it does about you -
>
>> Rotation of bodies, including the Earth has nothing to do with the
>> equation of time. The Equation of time deals with the "solar day" and
>> elliptical orbit of the earth about the sun.... totally independent
>> of the measure of rotation of the earth. - Sam Wormley
>
> The Earth turns at 69.17 miles every 4 minutes at the Equator and
> turning with a slower speed towards the geographical poles,it is so
> fundamental and enjoyable that I welcome any of those websites which
> show that if you turn a world globe once,you will turn 1 hour through
> 15 degrees and 24 hours through 360 degrees -
>
My approach to trying to have a conversation with you, Gerald, is
to simplify to a single concept... say the rotion of the earth.
Then later, we can add the sun, moon or whatever.
But the simple rotation of the earth is just that... and earth rotates
about 361° in 24 hours or more precisely it rotates 360° in 86,164.09+
seconds. Once that is confirmed by observation (as it is every day)
we can start to add in other things, like the earth's orbit about the
sun.
We have to keep the concepts simple and have clarity before building
on to the more complex.
oriel36
You do not have to do anything other than accept how the 24 hour day
is extracted as an average from the natural noon inequality over an
orbit,how this 24 hour day takes on the terms of Monday/Tuesday/
Wednesday and how that average was adapted to the daily cycle as a
constant .
> Rotation of bodies, including the Earth has nothing to do with the
> equation of time. The Equation of time deals with the "solar day" and
> elliptical orbit of the earth about the sun.... totally independent
> of the measure of rotation of the earth. - Sam Wormley
When you write something like that Sam without the slightest hint of
objection from anyone else then even I have to concede the
unchallenged luxuries of saying whatever you wish,something which
happened after 1905,then any semblance of a conversation nigh on
impossible.
http://www.aboutromania.com/World2.gif
Turn a world globe once and the 24 hour meridians follow suit at 1
hour per 15 degrees of geographical separation or 4 minutes for every
69.17 miles travelled at the maximum Equatorial speed.Somehow you and
the rest have an aversion to this correlation and I am at a loss to
explain it beyond the confines of a cult consensus because the
alternative 'sidereal time' value has a definite beginning with
Flamsteed and his inverted references.
You teach sidereal time as anything other than an observational
convenience in American schools and you introduce old world prejudices
of the worst kind,teach the longitude principles which link daily
rotation and clocks to planetary geometry and things become lively and
enjoyable again for your student and good for the wellbeing of a
country.Even without explaining the Equation of Time correction needed
to make the system work,an agreed convention which splits the Earth
into time and geographical separation through its rotational
characteristics -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE
People calling me insane for believing the Earth rotates once in 24
hours with the reasoning to support it has become unbearable,not
because there are about 50 different alternative attempts to make
observations fit the 'sidereal time' value,but that the intellectual
platform which creates the daily and calendar timekeeping averages is
so enjoyable. and so important.
Quadibloc
> I welcome any of those websites which
> show that if you turn a world globe once,you will turn 1 hour through
> 15 degrees and 24 hours through 360 degrees -
If you turn a world globe once, you will indeed turn it through 360
degrees.
One of the specifics of the Earth's orbit around the Sun is that the
Earth's rotational north pole is pointed towards Polaris all year
long.
So if you took one of those old-style world globes that is held by the
poles from an arc having a scale of latitude on it, tilted by 23 1/2
degrees, and you carried it around a wastebasket to simulate its
orbit, you would have to keep that spine pointed in the same direction
all the time.
So if you advance the globe a little less than one degree in a circle
around the wastebasket to simulate one day's orbital motion, and you
also spin the globe around on its base, you would have to rotate it
that one extra degree to correspond to 24 hours. If you just rotate it
by what seems to be a full circle, to the same orientation relative to
its base, then you have only moved it by 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4
seconds' worth of rotation.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >Here's a simpler question for him. Does the Moon rotate?
>
> Oooh, hey, that's a good one.
>
> He will of course neither answer with a yes or a no nor make any
> meaningful claims at all about the Moon's rotation or orbit.
>
> Guaranteed or your money back.
You may well be right. But if he answered "no", that would at least be
fully consistent with his identifying 24 hours as the period of the
Earth's rotation.
John Savard
Dave Typinski
Yep. I suspect that he knows that the Moon does rotate and that he is
at complete loss for a way to reconcile the fact with his ideas about
rotation.
Since he hasn't done so by now, I suspect he'll pretend the question
doesn't exist. Much easier that way, you know.
When you /know/ your intuition is right, you needn't bother with
pedestrian things like cogent arguments.
--
Dave
Quadibloc
*Does* he know the Moon rotates?
Or is he consistent, and does he claim that the Moon orbits the Earth,
and that is all that it does; it keeps one side towards the Earth, and
so the fact that the return of a star on the Moon would seem - to an
imaginary observer - to take place in about a month is an irrelevant
external reference... considering the Moon's rotation, or lack
thereof, in any frame but the one embodying the relation between it
and its parent, the Earth, is illegal framehopping.
I don't see why he couldn't be perfectly consistent here.
Just as the Equation of Time shows why we have to think of the Earth
rotating in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds, libration (in
longitude) shows why we have to think of the Moon as rotating, of
course.
John Savard
Sam Wormley
> On Jun 30, 7:13 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Rotation of bodies, including the Earth has nothing to do with the
>> equation of time. The Equation of time deals with the "solar day" and
>> elliptical orbit of the earth about the sun.... totally independent
>> of the measure of rotation of the earth. - Sam Wormley
>
> When you write something like that Sam without the slightest hint of
> objection from anyone else then even I have to concede the
> unchallenged luxuries of saying whatever you wish,something which
> happened after 1905,then any semblance of a conversation nigh on
> impossible.
>
You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see
the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple
telescope, you can see that Polaris stays with half a degree of the
polar axis the whole 24 hours, confirming that the earth axis is tilted
with respect to the ecliptic resulting in seasons.
Prepare to stay for six months so you can watch the sun "sink away"
as we head into winter.
oriel36
Somehow you can have the Sun and stars together in the same sky just
like the 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax ( I have worked within
the Arctic circle in Northern Norway ) but like all the other things
ranging from history to technical issues,these are just things you
have built up in your head and do not exist in actuality.
I noticed that at the end of of every news item,the NOAA articles now
puts a slogan or mantra on -
"NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment,
from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves
and manages our coastal and marine resources. "
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090622_hfc.html
Yet a simple search using 'seasons' as the keyword on its website
brings up the usual explanation -
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php
Even allowing for the unrelenting and universal hostility towards the
issue of the dynamics behind seasonal changes,an organisation heavily
involved in global climate like NOAA is obligated to explain the
seasonal temperature variations first and properly in order to
discriminate between seasonal weather and global climate inputs and
this is not happening insofar as referencing 'tilt' to the central
Sun,trying to make weather look like climate and then issuing
conclusions based on a single item like carbon dioxide has all the
hallmarks of desperation and recklessness.
> Prepare to stay for six months so you can watch the sun "sink away"
> as we head into winter.
I worked in Northern Norway which is why I know that the major input
for seasonal temperature variations is not inclination to solar
radiation based on 'tilt' but on the length of time a large
latitudinal area spends in solar radiation and in the orbital shadow
along with oceanic and continental factors.The problem with modifying
the view of 'tilt' which you inherit from Copernicus is that even a
story can be manufactured to ignore that Copernicus expressed seasonal
variations using variable tilt to the Sun -
"... the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
affected exclusively by the motion of the centre, no inequality of
days and nights would be observed. On the contrary,it day or the day
of equal daylight and darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever the
character of the season, it would remain identical and unchanged."
Copernicus
A society that can distort even the ground rules,which is exactly what
'axial tilt to the orbital plane' does does not have a clear platform
to discuss the seasons let alone global climate.
40 years ago this month,a nation and its can-do spirit of individual
achievements put men on the moon in competition with a commie ideology
with its emphasis on communal conformity,considering that anyone who
now dares call attention to the reckless conclusion linking carbon
dioxide directly to global temperature variations to the exclusion of
all else is shunned and ignored while even basic planetary dynamics
fact are distorted,is not living in the same America which produced
the space program.
Martin Nicholson (NMR)
You seem to have slipped back into your comfort zone where you
mindlessly repeat the same old material again and again.
Clearly you don't recognise your own mental illness - but the rest of
us do!
PLEASE SEEK THE HELP YOU NEED!
oriel36
The "rest of us" indeed !,
There is no mystery to all this,a location at the Equator turns 69.17
miles every 4 minutes, 1037 miles every hour and 24901.5 miles in 24
hours where 1 degree of geographical separation equates to 4 minutes
of clock time and all designed around the rotational characteristics
of the Earth.
For this I have people like you with this unrelenting screaming at me
just because there are not enough people who can work their way
through the differences which create a timekeeping standard as a
matter of convenience and another set of references which isolate
daily rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours.The modern world agrees
on certain conventions, such as communication networks or computer
standards and it is no different in ancient times as they created
timekeeping standards for the equable 24 hour day and converting the
raw orbital cycle into a linear progression of years by correcting
the timekeeping calendar system back to the raw orbital cycle by
adding a day every 4th year.
All that is missing is an authority to set the conventions
straight,show where the limitations are and halt this tendency to use
the 'sidereal time' convenience to dictate planetary dynamics.The slow
change which I see appearing is the wrong approach even if it is
welcome,the matter requires people who are willing to deal with the
matter effectively instead of this dithering I see here in the forum
or looking for some loophole in order to prop up a simple and obvious
mistake that distinguishes ' sidereal time' as a timekeeping average
from its limitations for planetary dynamics and its effects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88I3OBtNO58
Of course I expect everyone to jump through the loophole provided in
the earlier part of the video and ignore the later one of 15 degrees
per hour but then again it is not what astronomers do,they are
supposed to know how the average 24 hour day transfers to daily
rotation as a constant by using the common references to the daily Sun
and the Equation of Time correction.
All this is just a continuation of a struggle between astrologers and
astronomers with astronomers now back in the ascendency after
centuries of astrological dominance.It is not a popularity contest but
one of vibrancy and good to see a few green shoots appear.
Quadibloc
> it is not what astronomers do,they are
> supposed to know how the average 24 hour day transfers to daily
> rotation as a constant by using the common references to the daily Sun
> and the Equation of Time correction.
What astronomers know is how the axial rotation with a period of 23
hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds -
not only relative to the distant "fixed" stars, which, in themselves
you *could* validly dismiss as astrological and irrelevent,
but also relative to _the coordinate system established by the
relationship between the Earth's rotational axis (or the celestial
equator, which equivalently defines the same direction - you can find
Polaris either way) and the Earth's orbital plane, the ecliptic_ -
transfers, with the addition of the Earth's orbital motion (with its
specific characteristics of taking a year, and being in the ecliptic
plane, which is, I suppose, what you mean by an "orbital specific")
to the natural noon cycle.
And the 24 hour day used on our clocks is a timekeeping convenience
derived from averaging the time the natural noon cycle takes. It has
no other significance... but time itself, measured by some uniform
system, on the other hand, _is_ fundamental. (A detail you miss, you
refuse to notice that the return of a star could be timed with a
pendulum clock with a pendulum of any arbitrary length, so you think
our reasoning is circular.)
There is no external reference for a uniform 24 hour day, as you have
yourself said.
But not only the distant stars are a reference for a uniform 23 hour,
56 minute, and 4 second period of axial rotation.
More importantly, and, in fact the real reason we reject and refuse
your advice as to how astronomy needs to be reformed, is that one
aspect of the "orbital specific" of the Earth - the relationship of
the Earth's axis of rotation to the plane of its orbit - is the real
reference for the sidereal day, the one that makes it impossible to
use a 24-hour day as a starting point.
But then, you don't believe in a "wandering analemma Sun" either.
You admire the chronometer of Harrison, so you don't ask us to throw
away all our mechanical clocks, and go back to using sundials.
But, given the fact that the period to which mechanical clocks are
tuned - the 24 hour average of natural noon - is derived from natural
noon, you insist that mechanical clockwork time must be regarded as
strictly subordinate to natural noon. So using our mechanical clocks
to time the return of a star (as an approximation to the return of the
equinoctial point), to notice that the Earth's axial rotation is
smooth and regular in mechanical clock terms when viewed in that
frame... is illegitimate framehopping or whatever.
Your position is based on a specious accusation of circular reasoning.
The 24 hour span of time to which clocks are set derives from natural
noon. The mechanism of a clock itself does not. So we can start from
clock time to understand that the Earth moves simply, in relation to
the stars, by clock time, and then combine this simple motion with the
specifics of the Earth's orbit to indeed explain the Equation of Time
in a sensible, understandable, and, yes, enjoyable way. Your one
error, however, throws all into confusion.
John Savard
Sam Wormley
> On Jul 1, 4:11 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see
>> the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple
>> telescope, you can see that Polaris stays with half a degree of the
>> polar axis the whole 24 hours, confirming that the earth axis is tilted
>> with respect to the ecliptic resulting in seasons.
>>
>
> Somehow you can have the Sun and stars together in the same sky just
> like the 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax ( I have worked within
> the Arctic circle in Northern Norway ) but like all the other things
> ranging from history to technical issues,these are just things you
> have built up in your head and do not exist in actuality.
If you were an amateur astronomer, you would know that bright stars
are visible in daylight with a small telescope. Polaris can be viewed
easily with a telescope, especially when the sun is low on the
horizon... that happens a lot at the poles.
oriel36
Here is your solar vs sidereal time hoax based on having the Sun and
stars in the same sky -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day
So you have the Earth rotate to noon in 24 hours and the Earth rotate
to the star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,now that you are into
observational certainties using imaging, you have to demonstrate that
each consequitive noon is 24 hours exactly in order to maintain the
structure to the return of a star.
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif
The .986 degree difference is based on rotation through 360 degrees in
24 hours-
360 degrees = 24 hours
1 degree = 4 minutes
.986 degree = 3 minutes 56 seconds
24 hours minus 3 minutes 56 seconds = 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds
So Sam,good to see into actual observations for a change,of course you
are among empiricists with no loyalty to children, family,community or
nation therefore you will find it easy to wiggle your way out of a 24
hour natural noon.Go ahead,I welcome observations which show that
natural noon returns in 24 hours now that you are the first to answer
with observations.
The correct answer is that noon cycles are unequal and the 'sidereal
time vs solar time' is a hoax based on having the Sun and a star
share the same sky.
palsing
> I worked in Northern Norway which is why I know that the major input
> for seasonal temperature variations is not inclination to solar
> radiation based on 'tilt' but on the length of time a large
> latitudinal area spends in solar radiation and in the orbital shadow...
Well, sure, the northern latitudes get a lot more sunshine in the
summer and a lot less sunshine in the winter, and this accounts for
the seasonal temperature variations.
Why do you suppose this is the case? Could it be that the northern
hemisphere tilts towards the sun in the summer and away from it in the
winter? This tilt is not variable, by the way, it just seems that way
because the earth has moved halfway around in its orbit.
Having worked in Northern Norway you certainly must have noticed that
the sun was high in the sky in summer and low in the winter. Why, if I
didn't know any better, I might think it was actually wandering around
up there. If I mapped the spot in the sky where the sun was located
each day at noon, after a year, what kind of pattern do you suppose
would emerge on that map? Is the high summer sun and low winter sun in
Norway some kind of hoax?
It is too bad that you are so unteachable, there are a lot of really
smart guys on this forum, and you have much to learn.
"Give me a fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its
own corrections. You can keep your sterile truth for yourself."
~Vilfredo Pareto
\Paul A
Dave Typinski
>
>So Sam,good to see into actual observations for a change,of course you
>are among empiricists with no loyalty to children, family,community or
>nation
You're beginning to smell like a True Believer(tm). Might be time to
bathe as the Patchouli no longer covers it.
>The correct answer is that noon cycles are unequal and the 'sidereal
>time vs solar time' is a hoax based on having the Sun and a star
>share the same sky.
Wow. That's not even cogent enough to be wrong, let alone right.
I'm afraid you're coming off ever more like the Creationists and the
Intelligent Designers.
Here's the Creationist world view being crushed like the empty pop can
it is:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1083565954
Here's another analysis of mythology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iUyAppOOU0
--
Dave
Chris L Peterson
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The correct answer is that noon cycles are unequal and the 'sidereal
>time vs solar time' is a hoax based on having the Sun and a star
>share the same sky.
I'll not waste my time addressing the content of your beliefs, but I
will ask this: what is the motivation behind this "hoax"? Hoaxes are
perpetrated as practical jokes, satirically to motivate some sort of
social change, or to make fun of something. They might be created to
make money- a sort of con, perhaps. They typically fall apart if you
have more than a handful of hoaxsters involved.
So, given the difficulty of maintaining a hoax where the hoaxsters
consist of every member of the educated establishment except yourself,
and the apparent lack of anything to gain on anybody's part, I ask you:
why?
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Quadibloc
> So you have the Earth rotate to noon in 24 hours and the Earth rotate
> to the star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,now that you are into
> observational certainties using imaging, you have to demonstrate that
> each consequitive noon is 24 hours exactly in order to maintain the
> structure to the return of a star.
No, this would only be true if the Earth's rotational axis was
strictly perpendicular to the ecliptic, and the Earth's orbit was
circular.
Since those are not the specifics of the Earth's orbit, the Earth
rotating to a star in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds only leads
to a day which averages to 24 hours over the course of a year - and
from those two causes, the inclination of the axis of the Earth's
rotation to the ecliptic, and the elliptical nature of the Earth's
orbit, we get the Equation of Time.
> The correct answer is that noon cycles are unequal and the 'sidereal
> time vs solar time' is a hoax based on having the Sun and a star
> share the same sky.
What other sky is there for either the Sun or the stars to belong to?
On the Earth, it is true, the atmosphere causes the glare of sunlight
to obscure the stars during the day. On the Moon, there is no such
problem.
John Savard
oriel36
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:56:19 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
>
The other option for the hoax is a cult,a hoax presumes that people
are aware that there is a difference,in this case between inverted
references for daily and orbital motions whereas a cult mindset such
as yourself and most here just will not get it.
A simple correlation where the Earth turns 69.17 miles every 4
minutes at the Equator and 24901.5 miles in 24 hours where 1 degree
of geographical separation correlates with 4 minutes clock time making
24 hours/360 degrees is the most basic of all astronomical
correlations,yet you just can't grasp it .The 'sidereal vs solar time'
hoax has a definite beginning,that is why it is a hoax along with the
wandering 'analemma' Sun.
palsing
> A simple correlation where the Earth turns 69.17 miles every 4
> minutes at the Equator and 24901.5 miles in 24 hours where 1 degree
> of geographical separation correlates with 4 minutes clock time making
> 24 hours/360 degrees is the most basic of all astronomical
> correlations,yet you just can't grasp it .
This is correct, with respect to the sun, and no one here disputes
this. We all grasp this simplest of concepts just fine, so knock off
the disparaging remarks, it only makes you look even more stupid than
normal.
> The 'sidereal vs solar time'
> hoax has a definite beginning,that is why it is a hoax along with the
> wandering 'analemma' Sun.
If you can't make the easy jump to the next frame of reference, all is
lost for you. The famous dead astronomers had it right, but you have
failed to properly interpret what they said. There is no 'sidereal vs
solar' issue, they coexist just fine, once you understand frames. It
is not really that hard for most of us.
Please remove your cranial calculator from its rectal storage facility
and open your horizons a little. Although celestial mechanics is
ultimately very complicated, the fact of the matter is that the
concepts themselves are fairly easy to grasp, given the right
perspective.
Again, it is too bad that you appear to be unteachable, because you
have a lot to learn, and currently not much to offer.
As per this chart, you have a faith-based methodology rather than a
scientific method, and I think this sums you up quite nicely;
http://www.gardendigest.com/images/methods2.gif
\Paul A
Sam Wormley
> On Jul 1, 5:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> oriel36 wrote:
>>> On Jul 1, 4:11 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see
>>>> the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple
>>>> telescope, you can see that Polaris stays with half a degree of the
>>>> polar axis the whole 24 hours, confirming that the earth axis is tilted
>>>> with respect to the ecliptic resulting in seasons.
>>> Somehow you can have the Sun and stars together in the same sky just
>>> like the 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax ( I have worked within
>>> the Arctic circle in Northern Norway ) but like all the other things
>>> ranging from history to technical issues,these are just things you
>>> have built up in your head and do not exist in actuality.
>> If you were an amateur astronomer, you would know that bright stars
>> are visible in daylight with a small telescope. Polaris can be viewed
>> easily with a telescope, especially when the sun is low on the
>> horizon... that happens a lot at the poles.
>
> Here is your solar vs sidereal time hoax based on having the Sun and
> stars in the same sky -
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day
Gerald--You should read this link you posted... you might learn
something with a bit of disciplined study. Thanks you posting the
link!
skyguy
>
> You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see
> the sun go around 361� of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple
> telescope, you can see that Polaris stays with half a degree of the
> polar axis the whole 24 hours, confirming that the earth axis is tilted
> with respect to the ecliptic resulting in seasons.
>
> Prepare to stay for six months so you can watch the sun "sink away"
> as we head into winter.
That's a great idea and well suited for demonstrating with a computer
animation. Show the horizon with degree marks, moving slowly from right
to left on the screen (north pole), while the sun remains centered on
the screen at some elevation above the horizon, representing a date
between the spring and autumn equinoxes. Start the animation with the
sun at 0-deg azimuth or due north. The program would calculate how far
to move the horizon for each compressed hour of animation time. At the
end of 24-hrs. the sun would be located one degree to the right (east)
of due north or 361-deg. of rotation. You could even add an algorithm
and data for one yearly orbit and see how the sun's altitude above the
horizon changes from one day to the next. At this time of year near the
June solstice the daily change in altitude would hardly be noticeable
but would increase to almost a degree per day near the equinoxes.
oriel36
> On Jul 1, 4:01 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A simple correlation where the Earth turns 69.17 miles every 4
> > minutes at the Equator and 24901.5 miles in 24 hours where 1 degree
> > of geographical separation correlates with 4 minutes clock time making
> > 24 hours/360 degrees is the most basic of all astronomical
> > correlations,yet you just can't grasp it .
>
> This is correct, with respect to the sun, and no one here disputes
> this.
A proud teacher of astronomy stands before his pupils and explains
where the average 24 hour day comes from and how the Equation of Time
difference between the natural noon inequalities and the 24 hour day
also serves the purpose of using the 'average' part to represent
constant daily rotation.He can then show how the Earth turns at 69.17
miles every four minutes at the Equator making an entire 24 901.5 mile
revolution in 24 hours or 1037 miles every hour or 15 degrees of
geographical separation.He can take the lecture anywhere he likes
after this,from climate to history,from geology to solar system
structure ,from the calendar system which creates a linear progression
of years out of a raw orbital cycle to modern imaging which explains
most if not all of the concepts behind these great astronomical
things.
You dispute the value and reasoning behind the rotation of the Earth
once in 24 hours even when spinning a world globe demonstrates with
its 24 hour/360 degree longitude lines encapsulating the efforts of
many civilisations of many millenia to come to a stable relationship
between timekeeping and planetary dynamics.I do not hold Flamsteed to
his mistake of inverting the references for daily and orbital motion
nevertheless the consequences are severe.
We all grasp this simplest of concepts just fine, so knock off
> the disparaging remarks, it only makes you look even more stupid than
> normal.
>
> > The 'sidereal vs solar time'
> > hoax has a definite beginning,that is why it is a hoax along with the
> > wandering 'analemma' Sun.
>
> If you can't make the easy jump to the next frame of reference, all is
> lost for you. The famous dead astronomers had it right, but you have
> failed to properly interpret what they said. There is no 'sidereal vs
> solar' issue, they coexist just fine, once you understand frames. It
> is not really that hard for most of us.
>
> Please remove your cranial calculator from its rectal storage facility
> and open your horizons a little. Although celestial mechanics is
> ultimately very complicated, the fact of the matter is that the
> concepts themselves are fairly easy to grasp, given the right
> perspective.
>
> Again, it is too bad that you appear to be unteachable, because you
> have a lot to learn, and currently not much to offer.
>
> As per this chart, you have a faith-based methodology rather than a
> scientific method, and I think this sums you up quite nicely;
>
> http://www.gardendigest.com/images/methods2.gif
>
> \Paul A
What none have you have done is presented the arguments against the
turning of the planet through 360 degrees in 24 hours using a normal
world globe -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg
The natural noon cycle is the nearest observation to the daily cycle
as a combination of daily rotational characteristics and orbital
ones,the former constant while the latter is variable in speed and
geometry hence there is no external reference for daily rotation as an
independent motion yet the Equation of Time correction does an
excellent job of maintaining both the equable 24 hour day and constant
rotation seen as a teacher turns the planet through 360 degrees
The other end of the scale are the large concepts built on the false
inverted references or climate change issues but these can wait until
somebody or some organisation has the guts to at least acknowledge two
systems,the timekeeping Ra/Dec convenience modelled on timekeeping
averages and the raw astronomical cycles and the convention of
references which restore the daily cycle to its natural reference to
the daily Sun.
Quadibloc
> What none have you have done is presented the arguments against the
> turning of the planet through 360 degrees in 24 hours using a normal
> world globe -
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg
If you were to simulate the motions of the Earth by walking in a
circle, holding such a globe in your hand, and turning it, to keep the
Earth's North Pole always pointing to the star Polaris, you would have
to keep the curved spine holding the globe, shown on the left side in
the photograph, always in one direction relative to the points of the
compass or the walls of the room.
So to lead to an average 24 hour solar day, and the time zone to
longitude correspondence resulting from that, the globe would have to
rotate, compared to its base and the spine holding it... once every 23
hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
John Savard
oriel36
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Wiki link was written by the trekkie who has the return of a
star (a legitimate timekeeping average) in 24 hours 3 minutes 56
seconds -
"Because the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at
any one place at midnight will be about four minutes later each night,
until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has
transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
The 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax involves the type of people I
have no interest in and consider a nuisance,the politics of hoaxes are
irritating insofar as pretension is always at the bottom of them,the
Sokal hoax being a miniscule version of what you and the rest do here
day in and day out.The scientific hoax of Piltdown man is more
appriopriate insofar as it involves pieces that do not fit together
which is why the 'sidereal vs solar time hoax ;' as an expression of
planetary dynamics is so destructive however this requires people who
can actually tell the difference.With astronomy almost extinct, it is
proving difficult to find people,even with modern imaging tools,to
deal with the matter in a serious and responsible way.For example,you
say the Equation of Time has nothing to do with the daily cycle just
to avoid Newton's expression of the Equation of Time as absolute/
relative time and from there into supporting the inverted reference
for daily rotation whereas I would just shrug and say it is simply not
worth it.Too much imaging power and volume of data to try and squeeze
into an astrological framework.
Quadibloc
> The other option for the hoax is a cult,a hoax presumes that people
> are aware that there is a difference,in this case between inverted
> references for daily and orbital motions whereas a cult mindset such
> as yourself and most here just will not get it.
Ph'nglui mglw'nahf Newton R'lyeh wgah'nagl ftaghn?
John Savard
haiku jones
Oh, "Solar Time, Sideral Time", a total hoax, was shot
on a sound stage in Death Valley. That's old news.
Haiku Jones
oriel36
It is a bad idea to use the Earth's rotational orientation as a
description of apparent solar altitude variations over the annual
orbit as the dynamic which causes the illusion is strictly a feature
of orbital one.
I am afraid I have to use this response to finish off a bit of
housekeeping in the matter of the 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax
and why it is a destructive hoax many times in magnitude larger than
Piltdown man with the modifier that it only started out as a genuine
mistake by Flamsteed,it became a significant hoax after people
started to build on it -
"The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific
process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and
challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific
interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends
to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further
reconsideration. "
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html
That is exactly what happened with the difference being that there is
no authority in existence to set the astronomical hoax off against the
actual references for daily and orbital motions yet that may
change.People can do better and they are going to have to.
palsing
> The 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax involves the type of people I
> have no interest in and consider a nuisance...
I think we all know just who the nuisance around here is...
With astronomy almost extinct, it is
> proving difficult to find people,even with modern imaging tools,to
> deal with the matter in a serious and responsible way.
Astronomy is alive and thriving from where I'm sitting, very exciting,
and the only problem with modern images is that you have seriously
misinterpreted most of them...
For example,you
> say the Equation of Time has nothing to do with the daily cycle just
> to avoid Newton's expression of the Equation of Time as absolute/
> relative time and from there into supporting the inverted reference
> for daily rotation whereas I would just shrug and say it is simply not
> worth it.Too much imaging power and volume of data to try and squeeze
> into an astrological framework.
As always, if you don't understand frames of reference, you are sunk.
Finished. Strike 3, you're out.
I think Albert might have been talking about you here;
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they
call their point of view.” - Albert Einstein
“How little do they see what really is, who frame their hasty judgment
upon that which seems.” - Daniel Webster
\Paul A
palsing
> It is a bad idea to use the Earth's rotational orientation as a
> description of apparent solar altitude variations over the annual
> orbit as the dynamic which causes the illusion is strictly a feature
> of orbital one.
Well DUH!!!
Of course the apparent solar altitude is strictly a feature of orbital
dynamics, what do you think we have trying to tell you? Except, it
isn't an illusion, and the sun really does vary in altitude over the
course of a year because of the Earth's orbit.
You never noticed this from Northern Norway???
\Paul A
Dave Typinski
>
>You could even add an algorithm
>and data for one yearly orbit and see how the sun's altitude above the
>horizon changes from one day to the next. At this time of year near the
>June solstice the daily change in altitude would hardly be noticeable
>but would increase to almost a degree per day near the equinoxes.
I'm planning to do that to create the analemma by superimposing
successive images of the Sun as viewed from the Earth.
Can't do it without elliptical orbits, though. Getting the right
figure for the analemma would be a superb check that the animation
correctly models reality.
--
Dave
oriel36
Look,the apparent variation of the Sun over the course of an annual
orbit is an illusion just as apparent planetary retrogrades in
another context are illusions and resolved by taking into account
planetary dynamics ,the cause of the Sun's apparent variation is
strictly arising from the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun and
nothing to do with daily rotation or tilt.The answer is easy enough to
come to by making planetary comparisons between Uranus and Earth .
In any case,this is linked in with planetary dynamics,climate change
and how global climate cannot be derived as an extension of
weather.Not a chance of getting this up a running when there are two
opposing astrological frameworks for planetary dynamics of 'sidereal
vs solar time' on one side and a wandering 'analemma' Sun on the
other,both equally vacuous and nonsensical.
Maybe a genuine teacher can instruct his pupils that the Earth rotates
69.17 miles every 4 minutes at the Equator and the entire 24 901.5
miles in 24 hours where 1 degree of geographical separation equates to
4 minutes and 24 hours registers 360 degrees of rotation.The feeling
of,being put on a different road of freedom and individuality,is the
most amazing thing for those who take that first step -
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the_universe/uts/earth2.html&edu=high
palsing
> Look,the apparent variation of the Sun over the course of an annual
> orbit is an illusion just as apparent planetary retrogrades in
> another context are illusions and resolved by taking into account
> planetary dynamics...
OK, fine, the sun isn't really moving higher or lower in the sky, it
just appears to do so over the course of the year, I think we can all
agree with this statement. So?
,the cause of the Sun's apparent variation is
> strictly arising from the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun and
> nothing to do with daily rotation or tilt.
Whoa there, Big Guy, the angle between the earth's axis and the axis
normal to the plane of the ecliptic is EXACTLY what causes the sun to
appear higher in northern summer and lower in northern winter, and we
call this the tilt of the axis. Seasons have everything to do with
tilt and revolution about the sun and, like you say, nothing to do
with rotation about our axis. It is not a variable axis WRT to the
fixed stars, at least within the limits of our lifetimes, but is
certainly is variable WRT to sun over the course of a year.
>The answer is easy enough to
> come to by making planetary comparisons between Uranus and Earth .
Forget about the comparison between the Earth and Uranus for now, your
misinterpretation of the photos is just confusing you no end
>
> In any case,this is linked in with planetary dynamics,climate change
> and how global climate cannot be derived as an extension of
> weather.Not a chance of getting this up a running when there are two
> opposing astrological frameworks for planetary dynamics of 'sidereal
> vs solar time' on one side and a wandering 'analemma' Sun on the
> other,both equally vacuous and nonsensical.
The sidereal and solar concepts are not opposing astrological
frameworks at all, they coexist just fine, from the proper
perspective, of course.
Too bad you remain unteachable, you could learn a lot here.
Study this some more, ...
http://www.gardendigest.com/images/methods2.gif
... work on the scientific method for a while, and give up on the
faith-based crap.
\Paul A
palsing
> I'm planning to do that to create the analemma by superimposing
> successive images of the Sun as viewed from the Earth.
>
> Can't do it without elliptical orbits, though.
Just to make sure that we understand fully, if you DID run the
simulation using a circle instead of an ellipse, you would just get a
straight line, right? It is the slowing down and speeding up of the
Earth as it travels along its orbit that stretches the analemma a
little left and right as it goes up and down that creates the
figure-8.
I think I have this right...
"To teach is to learn twice."
- Joseph Joubert, French essayist
\Paul A
Sam Wormley
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day
>> Gerald--You should read this link you posted... you might learn
>> something with a bit of disciplined study. Thanks you posting the
>> link!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> The Wiki link was written by the trekkie who has the return of a
> star (a legitimate timekeeping average) in 24 hours 3 minutes 56
> seconds -
That's because any one of us can make the same measurement
and see that it is true.... that's the beauty of science,
it is repeatable, verifiable.
Quadibloc
> Just to make sure that we understand fully, if you DID run the
> simulation using a circle instead of an ellipse, you would just get a
> straight line, right? It is the slowing down and speeding up of the
> Earth as it travels along its orbit that stretches the analemma a
> little left and right as it goes up and down that creates the
> figure-8.
>
> I think I have this right...
The going left and right is due to the Equation of Time. Part of that
is caused by the Earth's elliptical orbit.
But another part is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis, the same
way as the seasons are. That is the part that makes the analemma look
like a figure-8 instead of just an oval.
My page at
http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
explains how the two factors going into the Equation of Time work
together.
John Savard
Dave Typinski
>
>On Jul 2, 12:07�pm, Dave Typinski <m�b...@trapezium.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm planning to do that to create the analemma by superimposing
>> successive images of the Sun as viewed from the Earth.
>>
>> Can't do it without elliptical orbits, though.
>
>Just to make sure that we understand fully, if you DID run the
>simulation using a circle instead of an ellipse, you would just get a
>straight line, right?
Yes, a straight vertical line.
>It is the slowing down and speeding up of the
>Earth as it travels along its orbit that stretches the analemma a
>little left and right as it goes up and down that creates the
>figure-8.
Yep, exactly.
The real analemma is also skewed very slightly counterclockwise.
Assuming photos taken at local noon, it'd be a perfectly vertical
figure eight if perhihelion and aphelion (the apsides) occurred on the
solstices. Right now, the apsides lag the solistices by almost two
weeks.
In 1250 AD or so, they coincided; but, general and anomalistic
precession have rotated the solstices and the apsides about 13� apart
since then.
...which makes me wonder what the analemma will look like in 5,200
years when they're 90� apart. Hm. Good cause for an animation! My
guess is that one half of the interior analemma curve trace will be
vertical while the other half will be rotated about the point of
intersection to its max deviation counterclockwise.
>I think I have this right...
>
>"To teach is to learn twice."
>- Joseph Joubert, French essayist
Amen to that, brother!
--
Dave
Dave Typinski
>
>On Jul 2, 4:49�pm, palsing <pals...@harris.com> wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure that we understand fully, if you DID run the
>> simulation using a circle instead of an ellipse, you would just get a
>> straight line, right? It is the slowing down and speeding up of the
>> Earth as it travels along its orbit that stretches the analemma a
>> little left and right as it goes up and down that creates the
>> figure-8.
>>
>> I think I have this right...
>
>The going left and right is due to the Equation of Time. Part of that
>is caused by the Earth's elliptical orbit.
>
>But another part is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis, the same
>way as the seasons are. That is the part that makes the analemma look
>like a figure-8 instead of just an oval.
Yep, good point!
And then you get another case where the effect of orbit eccentricity
exceeds the effect of axial tilt to the point where one of the lobes
no longer exists at all, like Mars. The Mars analemma looks loosely
like a drop of water.
--
Dave
oriel36
How does an Iowa farm boy come to the conclusion that a star returns
in 24 hours 3 minutes 56 seconds or 3 minutes 56 seconds later each
night ! -
"Because the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at
any one place at midnight will be about four minutes later each night,
until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has
transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
The response in the other thread is good enough to cover any
outstanding issues as to the importance of the rotation of the Earth
once in 24 hours and the reasons which lead to an emanate from that
value is many different spheres of human knowledge,creativity and
enjoyment. As I said,there has never been one dull day watching as
humanity has adapted the flexibility of the timekeeping averages based
on the 24 hour/360 degree kernal -
http://www.grand-illusions.com/articles/longitude/page02.shtml
I can allow Flamsteed his mistake that the apparent rotation of the
stars would appear to have an explanation through planetary dynamics
but the ins and outs of using a timekeeping average demonstrate
otherwise in a dramatic way ,specifically the prohibition of inverted
references for daily and orbital motions.You have courage to come here
and state your view and I cannot,cannot complain about you Sam whereas
others just make up whatever stories needed to obscure what is a very
simple and basic fact.The worst are the cowards ,for suppression of
dissent does not apply in this case as it amounts to outright
intellectual vandalism,and while allowing that the vast majority with
opt for the 'sidereal time' conclusion for daily rotation there has to
be some people who know the correct reasoning which leads to the
correct fact that the Earth rotates once in 24 hours.
A Kentucky farm boy once wrote these words Sam -
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
Abraham Lincoln
Quadibloc
> there has to
> be some people who know the correct reasoning which leads to the
> correct fact that the Earth rotates once in 24 hours.
But you yourself wrote that there is _no external reference_ for
constant rotation in a 24 hour period. So it's only a timekeeping
average. So how can _that_ be the "real" rotation of the Earth, if
it's just a timekeeping average?
There is no rule of planetary dynamics that says it's illegal,
immoral, or even fattening, to consider the Earth's rotation from the
viewpoint of the same frame of reference which we use to consider its
orbit. And once we do that, we can see that the Earth's rotation is
inherently a simple motion, one uniform according to mechanical clock
time. And that's the only way we can do that; Earth's rotation can be
simple and uniform if it takes 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds; if
it averages to 24 hours, then it is complicated and irregular, and 24
hours is a timekeeping average only, and nothing more.
John Savard
palsing
As aways, Gerald, it comes down to frames of reference.
If you don't understand frames, you are sunk. Period. End of
discussion.
You just don't know what you don't know, and to a greater degree than
the rest of us.
\Paul A
oriel36
> On Jul 3, 4:30 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 4:19 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > there has to
> > > be some people who know the correct reasoning which leads to the
> > > correct fact that the Earth rotates once in 24 hours.
>
> > But you yourself wrote that there is _no external reference_ for
> > constant rotation in a 24 hour period. So it's only a timekeeping
> > average. So how can _that_ be the "real" rotation of the Earth, if
> > it's just a timekeeping average?
>
> > There is no rule of planetary dynamics that says it's illegal,
> > immoral, or even fattening, to consider the Earth's rotation from the
> > viewpoint of the same frame of reference which we use to consider its
> > orbit. And once we do that, we can see that the Earth's rotation is
> > inherently a simple motion, one uniform according to mechanical clock
> > time. And that's the only way we can do that; Earth's rotation can be
> > simple and uniform if it takes 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds; if
> > it averages to 24 hours, then it is complicated and irregular, and 24
> > hours is a timekeeping average only, and nothing more.
>
> > John Savard
>
> As aways, Gerald, it comes down to frames of reference.
>
It comes down to a simple question with the answer being that the
Earth turns once in 24 hours,there is an enormous sprawling technical
and historical platform supporting that magnificent fact .
The analogy to the denial of men landing on the moon applies here with
the frightening or heartbreaking situation where in all the years not
one single person has affirmed that the Earth turns through 360
degrees in 24 hours,not just the magnificence of the achievement
itself but all the creative and human inventiveness in that value.
This goes beyond something where people should be ashamed of
themselves for that assumes that there is a level of goodness to
begin with and any history which demonstrates that the Earth turns at
an Equatorial speed of 69 .17 miles every 4 minutes is good enough to
settle the issue -
http://www.grand-illusions.com/articles/longitude/page02.shtml
Why this mass betrayal is not for me to answer even though I know the
politics which support 'sidereal time' ,I do not know why,in over 6 or
7 years in this forum,not one single person affirmed the importance of
this subject while importing a false and inverted references for daily
and orbital motions.I repeat,if a person denies that men landed on the
moon and all the achievement that went into that event,the denial of
the timekeeping system of 24 hours and the daily cycle is many more
times as significant .
Quadibloc
> This goes beyond something where people should be ashamed of
> themselves for that assumes that there is a level of goodness to
> begin with and any history which demonstrates that the Earth turns at
> an Equatorial speed of 69 .17 miles every 4 minutes is good enough to
> settle the issue -
>
> http://www.grand-illusions.com/articles/longitude/page02.shtml
I suppose the part you liked was really here:
http://www.grand-illusions.com/articles/longitude/page04.shtml
It certainly is true that local time changes by one hour for every 15
degrees, or four minutes for every degree, of longitude. It doesn't
change by one hour for every 15.041 degrees!
So in 24 hours, local noon travels around the world by exactly 360
degrees, crossing the International Date Line once along the way, and
it returns to where it started as noon of the next day.
No argument there.
The reason we don't accept the rest of your conclusions, though, is
because you are the one making the very mistake you think we are
making - getting a calendrical convenience mixed up with planetary
dynamics.
John Savard
Sam Wormley
> On Jul 3, 12:48 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> That's because any one of us can make the same measurement
>> and see that it is true.... that's the beauty of science,
>> it is repeatable, verifiable.
>
> How does an Iowa farm boy come to the conclusion that a star returns
> in 24 hours 3 minutes 56 seconds or 3 minutes 56 seconds later each
> night ! -
>
Between shelling corn and bailing hay, I studied mathematics, physics
and astronomy. But what really clinched it for me was the successive
occulations of Vega by the power line to the east of the farm house
at intervals of 86,164.09 seconds.