Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sunrise
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Science Fan
Jan 25, 2012, 7:14:39 AM1/25/12
to
What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
Gavino
Jan 25, 2012, 8:55:25 AM1/25/12
to
"Science Fan" <joe....@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:885b8588-77fc-49ec...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/moonkmft/Articles/EquationOfTime.html
news:885b8588-77fc-49ec...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
It's connected with the Equation of Time, and the analemma.
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/moonkmft/Articles/EquationOfTime.html
Androcles
Jan 25, 2012, 9:23:35 AM1/25/12
to
"Science Fan" <joe....@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:885b8588-77fc-49ec...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
|
| What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
| rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time
| rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
|
oriel36
Jan 25, 2012, 9:25:08 AM1/25/12
to
On Jan 25, 12:14 pm, Science Fan <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
Explaining observations like these requires building up a picture of
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
the motions behind it but sadly in this era,even when you can see
sunrise from space and a rotating Earth as the cause,the dominant view
is that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days hence any explanations
you may receive are simply assertions without substance.
The wandering Sun crowd would have you believe that they can explain
that particular conceptual monster even though there are 1461 natural
noon cycles covering 4 circuits of the Earth,so that from Mar 1st 2010
until Feb 28th 2011 there will be 365 natural noon cycles and from
Mar1st 2011 until Feb 29th 2012 there are 366 natural noon cycles and
these guys will drive themselves silly trying to fit the analemma into
the human format which overlays the natural proportion of 1461 daily
rotations for 4 orbital circuits.
Ask a simple question,if you set aside the daily rotation of the
Earth,would the Earth keep the same face to the Sun as the moon does
to the Earth or would it rotate once over the course of a year.The
answer is at the North/South poles where rotation is to all intents
and purposes entirely absent.Then you will start to get a picture of
the answer you seek.It is,in fact,a great puzzle for anyone and hasn't
been developed in any detailed way so good luck to you is you feel you
can take on a way to come to an enjoyable conclusion.
oriel36
Jan 25, 2012, 9:54:04 AM1/25/12
to
On Jan 25, 2:23 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
> "Science Fan" <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The Equation of Time cannot be explained by using the daily and
orbital dynamics of the Earth as there are 1461 natural noon cycles in
4 orbital circuits of the Earth corresponding to 1461 full days of 24
hours.
Flinging web references at the guy,and especially that convoluted junk
found in Wikipedia, merely exposes the inability to put the noon
correction between the natural cycle and the 24 hour cycle in context
of the system containing 1461 such corrections.
> "Science Fan" <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
orbital dynamics of the Earth as there are 1461 natural noon cycles in
4 orbital circuits of the Earth corresponding to 1461 full days of 24
hours.
Flinging web references at the guy,and especially that convoluted junk
found in Wikipedia, merely exposes the inability to put the noon
correction between the natural cycle and the 24 hour cycle in context
of the system containing 1461 such corrections.
palsing
Jan 25, 2012, 12:49:51 PM1/25/12
to
You have your cranial calculator so permanently embedded in its rectal
storage facility that you may never again learn anything new.
As someone famous once said, 'A little knowledge is a dangerous
thing'.
\Paul A
Sam Wormley
Jan 25, 2012, 1:00:16 PM1/25/12
to
On 1/25/12 6:14 AM, Science Fan wrote:
>
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
The earth's orbit is elliptical, as a result sunrise, solar noon and
>
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
sunset get ahead and behind. The eccentricity of the earth orbit and
the obliquity of the ecliptic are the largest factors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time
Androcles
Jan 25, 2012, 1:01:53 PM1/25/12
to
"palsing" <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d4a81e7-7bc7-4d33...@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Year ago I did have the misfortune to encounter a moron that
insisted pi was 22/7. Same fixation on integers. Nothing can be
done for them, they are indoctrinated at an early age and just
as convinced in Santa Claus.
palsing
Jan 25, 2012, 1:55:12 PM1/25/12
to
On Jan 25, 10:01 am, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
> Year ago I did have the misfortune to encounter a moron that
> insisted pi was 22/7. Same fixation on integers. Nothing can be
> done for them, they are indoctrinated at an early age and just
> as convinced in Santa Claus.
***********************
> Year ago I did have the misfortune to encounter a moron that
> insisted pi was 22/7. Same fixation on integers. Nothing can be
> done for them, they are indoctrinated at an early age and just
> as convinced in Santa Claus.
Years ago I used to read Scientific American, and would turn to Martin
Gardner's column first. I loved his puzzles and great math stories.
Anyhow, it was Gardner's mythical Dr. Matrix who talked about a ratio
of integers that produced pi accurate to at least 5 places. Take the
easy-to-remember series 113355 and divide the last 3 numbers by the
first 3, that's it.
Of course, most of us have no problem simply remembering pi to 5
places, but still...
\Paul A
Androcles
Jan 25, 2012, 2:16:11 PM1/25/12
to
news:d67352c5-05b3-4d48...@e12g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
========================================
Phooey!
42581509225984
divided by 13554115355257
but don't tell Gerald.
Phooey!
42581509225984
divided by 13554115355257
but don't tell Gerald.
Quadibloc
Jan 25, 2012, 2:34:07 PM1/25/12
to
On Jan 25, 12:16 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
> Phooey!
> 42581509225984
>
> divided by 13554115355257
>
> but don't tell Gerald.
I know of 355/113 or 3 16/113, and remember 3.14159 26535 89793, but
> Phooey!
> 42581509225984
>
> divided by 13554115355257
>
> but don't tell Gerald.
that's all...
John Savard
Quadibloc
Jan 25, 2012, 2:40:03 PM1/25/12
to
On Jan 25, 7:25 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Explaining observations like these requires building up a picture of
> the motions behind it but sadly in this era,even when you can see
> sunrise from space and a rotating Earth as the cause,the dominant view
> is that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days hence any explanations
> you may receive are simply assertions without substance.
That "dominant view" is precisely what is necessary for building up an
> Explaining observations like these requires building up a picture of
> the motions behind it but sadly in this era,even when you can see
> sunrise from space and a rotating Earth as the cause,the dominant view
> is that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days hence any explanations
> you may receive are simply assertions without substance.
accurate picture of the motions behind the Equation of Time.
The Equation of Time is a variance in the 24 hour natural noon cycle.
If that cycle is the direct consequence of variations in the speed of
the Earth's rotation, there is nothing to explain - it just happens
that way for some mysterious reason.
An Earth that rotates at a steady, uniform speed - that would not
change how it rotates unless some force pushes on it - is the starting-
point we need to explain the Equation of Time physically. It is only
by viewing the Earth's rotational motion in relation to the distant
stars that we obtain such a rotation - with a period of 23 hours, 56
minutes, and 4 seconds.
Then we can see that the Equation of Time results from the Earth's
annual orbit - which, combined with a rotation of such a period,
produces a day/night cycle that averages to 24 hours - not being a
perfect circle and in the plane of the Equator. Those two effects mean
that the direction to the Sun from the Earth does not advance
uniformly over the course of a year, so the one rotation that is lost,
not becoming a day, is taken away at slightly unequal parts at
different times of the year.
John Savard
Androcles
Jan 25, 2012, 2:51:13 PM1/25/12
to
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:59b57f50-79f0-4b3e...@ov1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
I don't remember any of them, I remember how to FIND them.
97591
31065
3.141509738
1043
332
3.141566265
3.14 = 3 + 0.14
0.14 = 1/7.1428571428571428571428571428571
7.14 = 7+ 0.14
Therefore
3.14 = 3 + 1/(7 + 1/(7 + 1/(7+....)))
Chris.B
Jan 25, 2012, 3:04:06 PM1/25/12
to
On Jan 25, 7:01 pm, "Andrex scribbled:
> Years ago I did have the misfortune to encounter a moron that
were only on Tuesdays and Thursdays in leap years. It were only the
dark, satanic mill owner's kids what got to use 3.142 like they owned
the bløødy number. Which they did!
We were so bløødy poor we couldn't afford to believe in Father
Christmas. So we worked downt mines every single Christmas Day until
we were eleven and a half and never dreamt of ever seeing change from
a thrupenny bit. At least not in us lifetimes. So think on, mister
high and mighty!
> Years ago I did have the misfortune to encounter a moron that
> insisted pi was 22/7. Same fixation on integers. Nothing can be
> done for them, they are indoctrinated at an early age and just
> as convinced in Santa Claus.
When I were a lad.. us poor kids could only afford 22/7 and then it
> done for them, they are indoctrinated at an early age and just
> as convinced in Santa Claus.
were only on Tuesdays and Thursdays in leap years. It were only the
dark, satanic mill owner's kids what got to use 3.142 like they owned
the bløødy number. Which they did!
We were so bløødy poor we couldn't afford to believe in Father
Christmas. So we worked downt mines every single Christmas Day until
we were eleven and a half and never dreamt of ever seeing change from
a thrupenny bit. At least not in us lifetimes. So think on, mister
high and mighty!
oriel36
Jan 25, 2012, 3:18:54 PM1/25/12
to
ascension which is how they tried to explain the Equation of Time back
in the 18th century,even then there is no such thing as a wandering
Sun analemma as they tried to fit the Sun's motion into the clockwork
based Ra/Dec system creating things like a 'mean solar day in right
ascension' whereas today they attach daily rotation directly to right
ascension and do a dance around noon.Nevil Maskelyne,yeah him,goes
through the motions of this and at least I have some regard how they
are trying to square away 'sidereal time' with the Equation of Time .
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=10&size=1&id=pt.1764.x.x.54.x.344
Modern imaging does away with these complicated and contrived spiels
by accounting for the natural variations in the noon cycle using two
separate rotations to the central Sun and specifically using the
direct observations of Uranus as a gauge for the combination of daily
and orbital cycles which produce the observation from a turning
Earth.The South to North motion of daily rotation of Uranus combines
with its East to West orbital turning to the central Sun so more or
less the same effect accounts for our planet's variations and in doing
so modifies the explanation for the seasons,but that is another day's
work -
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
The idea of 1465 rotations in 1461 days is only a recent thing,the
guys in the 17th and 18th century would never have admitted to such a
hideous imbalance even as they were trying to model planetary motion
using the clock and the human devised calendar system.
You see Sam,however you may regard these men 300 years ago and they
were dead serious about what they were doing,they did not have the
information that we have today as we can look at the Earth from space
and draw conclusions or with detailed images of other planets,the
picture of planetary dynamics gets assembled by cross referencing
which is a relatively easy thing to do once you become accustomed to
the process.There is nothing stopping any individual from picking out
the reason for the variations in the natural noon cycles by extracting
the dual motions to the central Sun from the sequence of images above
and have enough sense to know that it is a major modification.
palsing
Jan 25, 2012, 8:03:06 PM1/25/12
to
On Jan 25, 12:18 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What you are trying to do is dump daily and orbital motions into right
> ascension...
> What you are trying to do is dump daily and orbital motions into right
No, not correct...
>... they tried to fit the Sun's motion into the clockwork
> based Ra/Dec system creating things like a 'mean solar day in right
> ascension' whereas today they attach daily rotation directly to right
> ascension...
> ascension' whereas today they attach daily rotation directly to right
No, not even close. You have been told umpteen times that sidereal
rotation and sidereal time have nothing whatsoever to do with the Sun.
NOTHING. Sidereal rotation is measured ONLY wrt to the fixed stars.
There is no sidereal morning, noon or night.
> The idea of 1465 rotations in 1461 days is only a recent thing,the
> guys in the 17th and 18th century would never have admitted to such a
Swing and a miss, strike 3...
"Talking with you is sort of the conversational equivalent of an out
of body experience."
- Calvin & Hobbes
\Paul A
Jonathan
Jan 25, 2012, 8:07:08 PM1/25/12
to
"Science Fan" <joe....@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:885b8588-77fc-49ec...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
That's a good question. The incremental change each day
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
is not uniform between the solstices by the way. The daily
change gets smaller as you get closer to a solstice.
I believe 'obliquity of the ecliptic', or 'axial tilt', or
'lateral offset' is the best I can do.
In the old days before precise measurements, I think
they used to call it 'the precession of the equinoxes'.
But now precession has a very different meaning.
My mentor, one of the greatest naturalists of the nineteenth
century, asked this very question when taking yet
another shot at the stupidity of the new-fangled
objective scientific perspective.
Oh, some scholar! Oh, some sailor!
Oh, some wise man from the skies!
Please to tell a little pilgrim
Where the place called morning lies!
By Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
The contradiction is of course in trying to precisely
define that which constantly changes.
s
Mike Dworetsky
Jan 26, 2012, 2:12:52 AM1/26/12
to
the inclination of the axis of rotation to the plane of Earth's orbit. If
the orbit were perfectly circular, there would still be Eq of T with a
variation that looks like a double sine wave when plotted.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
oriel36
Jan 26, 2012, 3:18:26 AM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 7:12 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
This doesn't work,at the December solstice when the Sun is scribing
out its largest arc at the latitude of Sydney,it it scribing its
shortest arc at London and as the natural noon correction is valid for
all latitudes on the planet where the Sun is seen at noon,declination
plays no role in determining Natural noon nor in the conversion to the
AM/PM cycle of the 24 hour day.
Is it so difficult to conceive that the total length of the natural
noon cycles is a global effect and not a hemispherical one ?.All it
requires is a grounding observation that the total length of noon
cycles vary,daily and orbital rotations are involved and the answer is
pretty much there.The Hubble time lapse footage shows the South to
North daily rotation of Uranus and simultaneously it East to West
orbital component,call it a quasi-rotation if you like,but the planet
does turn to the central Sun with a single orbital rotation coincident
with the orbital period.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/
> If the orbit were perfectly circular, there would still be Eq of T with a
> variation that looks like a double sine wave when plotted.
>
The Earth's orbital speed varies and with it the orbital component,as
the planet unevenly turns to the Sun effects the total length of the
noon cycle but at least we are keeping the dual motions of the Earth
fixed to the central Sun where they belong.It is almost a decade ago
when Schlyter stuck his neck out on this topic and was corrected yet
in that decade imaging power and more information has emerged that I
could't have posted back then such as the East to West turning of
Uranus when allied with the South to North daily rotation effectively
affirms the issue to a certainty -
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
out its largest arc at the latitude of Sydney,it it scribing its
shortest arc at London and as the natural noon correction is valid for
all latitudes on the planet where the Sun is seen at noon,declination
plays no role in determining Natural noon nor in the conversion to the
AM/PM cycle of the 24 hour day.
Is it so difficult to conceive that the total length of the natural
noon cycles is a global effect and not a hemispherical one ?.All it
requires is a grounding observation that the total length of noon
cycles vary,daily and orbital rotations are involved and the answer is
pretty much there.The Hubble time lapse footage shows the South to
North daily rotation of Uranus and simultaneously it East to West
orbital component,call it a quasi-rotation if you like,but the planet
does turn to the central Sun with a single orbital rotation coincident
with the orbital period.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/
> If the orbit were perfectly circular, there would still be Eq of T with a
> variation that looks like a double sine wave when plotted.
>
the planet unevenly turns to the Sun effects the total length of the
noon cycle but at least we are keeping the dual motions of the Earth
fixed to the central Sun where they belong.It is almost a decade ago
when Schlyter stuck his neck out on this topic and was corrected yet
in that decade imaging power and more information has emerged that I
could't have posted back then such as the East to West turning of
Uranus when allied with the South to North daily rotation effectively
affirms the issue to a certainty -
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
Sam Wormley
Jan 26, 2012, 9:30:01 AM1/26/12
to
On 1/26/12 2:18 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> The Earth's orbital speed varies and with it the orbital component,as
> the planet unevenly turns to the Sun effects the total length of the
> noon cycle...
> The Earth's orbital speed varies and with it the orbital component,as
> the planet unevenly turns to the Sun effects the total length of the
oriel36
Jan 26, 2012, 1:45:27 PM1/26/12
to
variations in declination are reversed hence the Equation of Time has
nothing whatsoever to do with the height of the Sun,it has to do with
the two rotations to the central Sun although I am willing to consider
the orbital component as a quasi-rotation insofar as it manifests
itself as a trait of the orbital behavior of the planet and easily
recognizable in the East to West rotation of Uranus to the central Sun
-
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
I have no doubt that these combined motions have already been
interpreted correctly as the cause of natural noon variations however
it has a greater significance for explaining the difference between
seasonal weather patterns within the encompassing structure of global
climate but unfortunately readers have to join me in the 21st century
by cross referencing planetary systems to arrive at a workable
solution.
You believe in 1465 rotations in 1461 days and have no business trying
to discuss the Equation of Time for there are 1461 natural noon
cycles across 4 orbital periods with Feb 29th as the 1461st day/
rotation closing out those 4 orbital circuits so whatever madness is
driving you to assume 4 extra rotations that the Earth doesn't
have,students should not have to hear it.This is completely
unacceptable,the option to deal with the issue is contingent on
structures being in place and there is not a single one that I could
called organized to handle an issue which surpasses the Gregorian
correction by many magnitudes in importance.
Do you really want to believe in 1465 rotations in 1461 days ?,I would
suffer severe nausea just thinking about what is being forced on
students for no good reason other than there is no authority who can
sort the issues out and despite astronomy being an individual and very
personal endeavor,its insights are not subject to the mishandling by
anyone and especially the basic planetary facts.
Tell me Sam,the Equatorial circumference is 24901 miles and 15 degrees
of geographical separation at the equator is 1037.5 miles and also 1
hour's time difference for each 15 degrees.What is the equatorial
speed per hour as the Earth turns through the circle of
illumination ?.The very fact that I have to ask that question and you
won't answer it is a self inflicted tragedy that you share with
everyone else here.
Davoud
Jan 25, 2012, 8:09:18 PM1/25/12
to
palsing to oriel:
You know that he's been told umpteen times (closer to sixty-leben,
probably) and /you/ still don't get it?
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
> No, not even close. You have been told umpteen times that sidereal
> rotation and sidereal time have nothing whatsoever to do with the Sun....
You know that he's been told umpteen times (closer to sixty-leben,
probably) and /you/ still don't get it?
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
oriel36
Jan 26, 2012, 2:48:43 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 1:09 am, Davoud <s...@sky.net> wrote:
> palsing to oriel:
>
> > No, not even close. You have been told umpteen times that sidereal
> > rotation and sidereal time have nothing whatsoever to do with the Sun....
>
> You know that he's been told umpteen times (closer to sixty-leben,
> probably) and /you/ still don't get it?
>
The daily temperature goes up and down on Feb 29th in response to the
> palsing to oriel:
>
> > No, not even close. You have been told umpteen times that sidereal
> > rotation and sidereal time have nothing whatsoever to do with the Sun....
>
> You know that he's been told umpteen times (closer to sixty-leben,
> probably) and /you/ still don't get it?
>
rotation of the Earth within that final 24 hour period covering 4
years and 4 orbital circuits of the Earth that began Mar1st 2008.If a
person manages to count those 1461 days,common sense would dictate
that there are a proportion of 1461 rotations to 4 orbital circuits
which reduces to a proportion of 365 1/4 rotations to 1 orbital
circuit.
Any doubts then look at a rotating Earth in a 24 hour period and if
you can find room for 1465 rotations in 1461 days then you lack common
sense or common decency -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxrIMHKobk0
Appealing to the indoctrinated is not my agenda,if you can find a way
to fit 367 rotations of the Earth into the 366 days covering Mar 1st
2011 to Feb 29th 2012 and still account for the daily temperature
rises and falls for each 24 hour rotation then good for you.
The sensible view is that there are 1461 rotations of the Earth
covering 4 circuits of the Earth around the Sun and science doesn't
exist if this fact is not affirmed and affirmed aggressively until
your cult mentality is no more.
oriel36
Jan 26, 2012, 3:22:42 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 1:09 am, Davoud <s...@sky.net> wrote:
the American public on their lack of knowledge that the Earth doesn't
turn once in a day -
"The lack of even a basic understanding of science among the American
people is appalling. Most people can’t answer the most basic questions
about the world around them. How long does it take for the Earth to
complete one rotation on its axis? (Hint: it’s not 24 hours.) Why do
we have seasons? What are the equinoxes? The solstices? (Hint: they're
tied to the reason we have seasons.)" Davoud
http://www.primordial-light.com/scienceis.html
Don't worry about theories,try your own eyes for a change -
ww/watch?v=JxrIMHKobk0w.youtube.com
On May 29th 2008 when that video was taken,the Earth turned once and
the day after that and the next one until in a number of weeks,the
Earth will turn the full 1461 rotations in proportion to the separate
4 orbital circuits of the Earth around the Sun.The meteorology guys
who watch the temperature go up and down daily normally would concur
but so far have shown themselves to be no better or worse than you
are.
Disappear back into your box where you can discuss the carpet on your
observatory floor or something of that nature.
Sam Wormley
Jan 26, 2012, 4:13:24 PM1/26/12
to
"pleasures" in his life.
oriel36
Jan 26, 2012, 5:06:26 PM1/26/12
to
before, the normal response is simply to begin with the known
experiences within a 24 hour period and infer that one 24 hour
rotation of the Earth such as daily temperature fluctuations in tandem
with day turning to night and keep in step way throughout the 4
orbital circuits of the Earth around the Sun.In short there are 1461
rotations enclosed in the period that began Mar 1st 2008 and will end
Feb 29th as the 1461 st rotation.
I can't say what this is,it is not betrayal as there is no known
reason why anyone,astronomer or not,could imagine 1465 rotations in
the 1461 noon cycles in proportion to 4 orbital circuits and yet
almost every single day for a decade I have fought to keep this fact
front and center until somebody with common sense had the wits about
them to understand the consequences.I can talk about fundamental
rights of students, the hacket job done on astronomy by empiricists
attempting to bridge astronomy with experimental sciences,the sheer
mess of the present situation but I cannot account for why people
could knowingly suffer something as awful and an imbalance between
days and rotations as you have it at 1465 rotations for 1461 days.
You have no idea what sacrifices I have made so that no student will
ever have to sit before a teacher and be indoctrinated into what is
essentially a right ascension cult which tries to justify stellar
circumpolar motion without the physical considerations on using an
average 24 hour day in the 365/366 day format.By the grace of God I
will not fail and this is no revenge talk but that goodness in
humanity that none of you can ever extinguish no matter how dominant
you appear to be and be that it may that I stand alone with the three
known facts which are central to all astronomy,I will not permit a
dismal and faith hating bunch to dictate to the wider population and
alternative and ridiculous set of values.
Here are the 3 core principles that do not take a holiday even if men
choose to -
1 - The equatorial Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees/1037.5 miles
per hour and a full 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours
2- The Earth turns 1461 times in 1461 days to the nearest rotation in
proportion to 4 orbital circuits of the Sun
3 The are 365 1/4 rotations enclosed on 1 orbital circuit.
The refinements haven't even begun yet and there is no entity in
existence presently with the motivation to secure those basic facts
let alone refine them.
You won't argue with those facts,that much I know but they are the
foundations on which astronomy is built,either timekeeping or
structural/dynamical astronomy.The people in the late 17th and 18th
century are not to blame,they made a bad mistake but it is our
generation,with all its technology,that cannot support their error nor
the people who promote it.
Brian Tung
Jan 26, 2012, 5:38:23 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 25, 4:14 am, Science Fan <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
I don't know what it's *called*, but as others have said, it
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
is related to the Equation of Time. However, the declination
of the Sun is also involved.
One interesting way to think about it (at least, I've found
it interesting) is to think not about the Sun itself rising and
setting, but about the *analemma* rising and setting. The
analemma is that elongated figure-eight that we often see
on your pricier globes, and it is essentially a parametric
plot of the Equation of Time (x-axis) and the declination of
the Sun (y-axis).
The analemma is aligned along a north-south line, more or
less. (It's not exact, but close enough for this discussion.)
As such, in the northern hemisphere, where the north
celestial pole (NCP) is above the horizon and the south
celestial pole (SCP) is below the horizon, the analemma is
tilted over to the left when it rises, and over to the right
when it sets. For instance, face east, and the NCP is to
your left and above the horizon and the SCP is to your
right and below the horizon. So, the line connecting them
through the horizon is tilted to the left. OK so far?
Now let's consider sunrise. Since the analemma is tilted
to the left at sunrise, the top of it rises before the bottom
does. The top of the analemma represents the summer
solstice, and the bottom of it the winter solstice. So, in
other words, the Sun rises earlier in summer than it does
in winter. Big deal!
But actually, it is a bit of a deal. Because the analemma
is not a stick, but is a figure-eight with definite width, the
latest rising of the analemma does not exactly correspond
to its very bottom. If you draw a figure-eight tilted to the
left, you'll see that the latest rising corresponds to a point
on the lower left of the analemma. The Sun rounds both
the upper and lower bowls of the analemma moving to the
left, so that's why the latest rising comes *after* the winter
solstice. And interestingly, that's true in both hemispheres.
What's more, the exact point of the latest sunrise depends
on the latitude. The closer to the equator, the more tipped
over the analemma at sunrise and sunset, and the more
extreme the delay between solstice and latest sunrise.
Right at the equator, the time of sunrise doesn't depend at
all (directly) on the declination of the Sun, but is a function
solely of the Equation of Time.
An interesting exercise is to figure out what happens in the
Arctic and Antarctic regions.
--
Brian Tung <brian....@gmail.com> (posting from Google Groups)
The Astronomy Corner at http://www.astronomycorner.net/
Unofficial C5+ Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/
My PleiadAtlas Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ at http://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html
Brian Tung
Jan 26, 2012, 5:41:32 PM1/26/12
to
I (Brian Tung) wrote:
> One interesting way to think about it (at least, I've found
> it interesting) is to think not about the Sun itself rising and
> setting, but about the *analemma* rising and setting.
> [big ol' snip]
> One interesting way to think about it (at least, I've found
> it interesting) is to think not about the Sun itself rising and
> setting, but about the *analemma* rising and setting.
I forgot to say: The reason to think of the analemma rising
and setting is that the analemma is tied to the *mean Sun*,
which advances at a constant rate. That is to say, the
analemma as a whole rises exactly every 24 hours. So
any day-to-day variation in the rising and setting times of
the Sun are due solely to where the Sun happens to be on
the analemma.
Brian Tung
Jan 26, 2012, 5:44:56 PM1/26/12
to
I (Brian Tung) wrote:
> The Sun rounds both
> the upper and lower bowls of the analemma moving to the
> left, so that's why the latest rising comes *after* the winter
> solstice. And interestingly, that's true in both hemispheres.
As a post-postscript...
> The Sun rounds both
> the upper and lower bowls of the analemma moving to the
> left, so that's why the latest rising comes *after* the winter
> solstice. And interestingly, that's true in both hemispheres.
After I wrote this, it occurred to me that something interesting
happens in the southern hemisphere, as a consequence of
the southern bowl of the analemma being wider than the
northern bowl.
Paul Schlyter
Jan 27, 2012, 6:05:22 AM1/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Brian Tung
<brian....@gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting exercise is to figure out what happens in the
> Arctic and Antarctic regions.
Right at the poles there is no "latest sunrise" etc, instead we have
<brian....@gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting exercise is to figure out what happens in the
> Arctic and Antarctic regions.
one sunrise and one sunset per year.
Peter Webb
Jan 27, 2012, 6:41:05 AM1/27/12
to
"Paul Schlyter" <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote in message
news:almarsoft.3745...@individual.net...
believed.
When is the longest day?
Well, the traditional answer is at the summer solstice.
That is correct if you assume that a day is the period between sunrise and
sunset. But that is a very limited interpretation of what a "day" is.
If a day is classified as the period between two successive sunrises, then
the answer depends on your exact latitude. But as you get close and closer
to the polar circle, it approaches the autumnal equinox. Basically at this
time of year sunrise occurs later each day, increasing the period between
sunrises. At the time of the autumnal equinox, the rate at which the sun is
rising later each day near polar latitudes is at a maximum.
OTOH, if a "day" is classified as the period between two successive sunsets,
this argument is reversed, the longest period between two successive sunsets
approaches the spring solstice the higher the latitude.
This trend terminates at the polar circles, because in the middle of summer
(winter) whole sunsets/sunrises are suddenly lost, which is a far greater
effect than the sunrises just becoming a few minutes earlier/later.
Regions in the tropics (but not on the equator) effectively have two summer
solstices, two winter solstices, and four equinoxes as the sun is directly
overhead at noon at two different times of the year.
So the answer as to when is the longest day depends on what you mean by a
"day". If it means the period between two successive sunrises, it can occur
anywhere between June 23rd and December 22nd. If it means two successive
sunsets, it can be anywhere between December 23rd and June 22nd. (In all
cases depending only on latitude).
Gavino
Jan 27, 2012, 7:20:36 AM1/27/12
to
"Brian Tung" <brian....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7de41f0-e5b9-4012...@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Yes, excellent post, Brian.
For a more detailed look at this topic, see
http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/projects/tsy.pdf
news:e7de41f0-e5b9-4012...@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 25, 4:14 am, Science Fan <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>One interesting way to think about it (at least, I've found
>it interesting) is to think not about the Sun itself rising and
>setting, but about the *analemma* rising and setting.
> ...
>One interesting way to think about it (at least, I've found
>it interesting) is to think not about the Sun itself rising and
>setting, but about the *analemma* rising and setting.
Yes, excellent post, Brian.
For a more detailed look at this topic, see
http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/projects/tsy.pdf
oriel36
Jan 27, 2012, 7:20:56 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 11:05 am, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Brian Tung
>
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Brian Tung
>
> <brian.y.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > An interesting exercise is to figure out what happens in the
> > Arctic and Antarctic regions.
>
> Right at the poles there is no "latest sunrise" etc, instead we have
> one sunrise and one sunset per year.
It is a quasi-rotation to the central Sun,the polar coordinates turn
> > An interesting exercise is to figure out what happens in the
> > Arctic and Antarctic regions.
>
> Right at the poles there is no "latest sunrise" etc, instead we have
> one sunrise and one sunset per year.
in a cycle/circle to the central Sun about a traveling axis stretching
through the center of the Earth and roughly in line with the circle of
illumination.The polar coordinates turn through the circle of
illumination at the equinoxes hence an orbital dawn or twilight
depending on where the Earth is in its orbital circuit.
Can nobody do a simple imitation analogy by using a broom handle to
substitute for daily rotation and orientation and the line of your
body to sustitute for the traveling axis as you walk/orbit around a
central object/Sun.The broom handle points constantly in the same
direction indicating daily rotation so that as you walk/orbit around
the central object,different sides of your body/planet face the Sun at
different times,this is what you see happening with Uranus in its
East to West turning to the Sun as opposed to the South to North daily
rotation -
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
The mistake of trying to run both daily and orbital motions off right
ascension is creating havoc,it requires two rotations to the central
Sun to explain the seasons or variations in the natural noon cycles
and the simplicity of explaining polar dawn/twilight using the the
motion of the polar coordinate through the circle of illuminations
obviates the need for 'tilt' or any other term attached to this view
which tries to do too much with too little.
Paul Schlyter
Jan 27, 2012, 7:24:26 AM1/27/12
to
"On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:41:05 +1100, "Peter Webb"
question to:
When is the shortest night?
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When is the longest day?
> Well, the traditional answer is at the summer solstice.
> That is correct if you assume that a day is the period between
sunrise and
> sunset. But that is a very limited interpretation of what a "day"
is.
To avoid this ambiguity in the word ,"day", let's rephrase the
> When is the longest day?
> Well, the traditional answer is at the summer solstice.
> That is correct if you assume that a day is the period between
sunrise and
> sunset. But that is a very limited interpretation of what a "day"
is.
question to:
When is the shortest night?
oriel36
Jan 27, 2012, 8:36:50 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 10:38 pm, Brian Tung <brian.y.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting exercise is to figure out what happens in the
> Arctic and Antarctic regions.
Get off your backside Tung and grab a broom,point is roughly 23 1/3
> An interesting exercise is to figure out what happens in the
> Arctic and Antarctic regions.
degrees off the line of your body and walk around a central object
while keeping the broom pointed to the same external point and then
forget it.Consider what the line of your body is doing as is makes a
circuit of the central object/Sun and you will have more or less the
answer as to why the planet has a single orbital day/night cycle aside
from the daily rotation.
Trying to explain the wander Sun analemma has all the intellectual
weight of discussing the fine points of the Piltdown Man skull.If you
still insist in running daily and orbital motions of the Earth off
right ascension reasoning and the analemma junk, you can forget
astronomy and take up something like making out designs from clouds.
Analemma indeed !.
oriel36
Jan 27, 2012, 9:25:17 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 12:24 pm, Paul Schlyter <pau...@stjarnhimlen.se> wrote:
> "On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:41:05 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>
> "On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:41:05 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>
> <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When is the longest day?
> > Well, the traditional answer is at the summer solstice.
> > That is correct if you assume that a day is the period between
> sunrise and
> > sunset. But that is a very limited interpretation of what a "day"
>
> is.
>
> To avoid this ambiguity in the word ,"day", let's rephrase the
> question to:
>
> When is the shortest night?
You poor creatures,the Earth has two day/night cycles running
> > When is the longest day?
> > Well, the traditional answer is at the summer solstice.
> > That is correct if you assume that a day is the period between
> sunrise and
> > sunset. But that is a very limited interpretation of what a "day"
>
> is.
>
> To avoid this ambiguity in the word ,"day", let's rephrase the
> question to:
>
> When is the shortest night?
concurrently so that every location on Earth experiences both to some
degree,at the polar latitudes they experience the orbital day/night
cycle in its fullest form,at the equatorial latitudes they experience
the daily rotational cycle in its fullest form and everywhere in-
between is a combination of both.
The inability to perceive the dynamics of a planet even from direct
observations reminds me of a comment Galileo made to Kepler about the
commonplace mind for although the turning of the polar latitudes
through the circle of illumination from the distance of Uranus
demonstrates the orbital feature,it appears readers simply can't look
at it for fear of dropping their 'tilt' explanation of the seasons and
their wandering analemma Sun -
"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable
stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the
principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the
stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets,
the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately
offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp
stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light
of truth" Galileo
A thousand times like Galileo said,this is what is called persistence
and all it takes is a relaxed view of the matter -
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
Mike Dworetsky
Jan 27, 2012, 10:46:43 AM1/27/12
to
analemma*, it does not do so at a constant speed, and in particular this has
the strongest effect on post winter solstice sunrise and sunset times in the
northern hemisphere because we are near perihelion.
*Find some photos of the analemma taken with cameras fixed in one place
throughout a year.
The equation of time has a very marked effect on the rapidly later time of
sunset during January in the northern hemisphere. More people notice this
than notice the sunrise time simply because they are more likely to be up
and about.
oriel36
Jan 27, 2012, 11:14:24 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 3:46 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
The Equation of Time works off the natural noon cycles of which there
are 1461 such cycles corresponding to 4 orbits of the Earth so the
analemma hoax doesn't even get off the ground from this standpoint and
although I am enjoying the appearance of so many people supporting
this hoax,it does require a certain group who can counter the hoax as
astronomers.
The astronomical system we inherit from antiquity assigns significance
to the appearance of Sirius coincident with the flooding of the Nile
insofar as Sirius disappears due to an orbital trait of the Earth
rather than any relevance to stellar circumpolar motion beloved of the
astronomically inept.A constant succession of 365 days does not return
Sirius to the same annual spot so the Egyptians worked out that an
extra day after every 4th cycle of 365 days keeps the annual circuits
fixed to the Nile inundation or in present dynamical terms,the 1461
rotations in proportion to the 4 orbital circuits of the Earth.
As Flamsteed used the rising of Sirius in an inappropriate stellar
circumpolar manner as opposed to its true appearance as an annual and
seasonal phenomenon,it lead to the worst possible conception of 1465
rotations in 1461 days and such crazy notions as a wandering analemma
Sun in the same arena as the true wanderers (planets).
Every time I see guys comment on the fictional and normally harmless
wandering Sun analemma,I think of this picture and how serious guys
actually are -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piltdownpainting.jpg
Is it possible that guys would try to make themselves any more
ridiculous then they already have ?
are 1461 such cycles corresponding to 4 orbits of the Earth so the
analemma hoax doesn't even get off the ground from this standpoint and
although I am enjoying the appearance of so many people supporting
this hoax,it does require a certain group who can counter the hoax as
astronomers.
The astronomical system we inherit from antiquity assigns significance
to the appearance of Sirius coincident with the flooding of the Nile
insofar as Sirius disappears due to an orbital trait of the Earth
rather than any relevance to stellar circumpolar motion beloved of the
astronomically inept.A constant succession of 365 days does not return
Sirius to the same annual spot so the Egyptians worked out that an
extra day after every 4th cycle of 365 days keeps the annual circuits
fixed to the Nile inundation or in present dynamical terms,the 1461
rotations in proportion to the 4 orbital circuits of the Earth.
As Flamsteed used the rising of Sirius in an inappropriate stellar
circumpolar manner as opposed to its true appearance as an annual and
seasonal phenomenon,it lead to the worst possible conception of 1465
rotations in 1461 days and such crazy notions as a wandering analemma
Sun in the same arena as the true wanderers (planets).
Every time I see guys comment on the fictional and normally harmless
wandering Sun analemma,I think of this picture and how serious guys
actually are -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piltdownpainting.jpg
Is it possible that guys would try to make themselves any more
ridiculous then they already have ?
Steve Willner
Jan 27, 2012, 4:14:06 PM1/27/12
to
[Newsgroups snipped]
In article <2K6dnQKZlMP0_rzS...@mchsi.com>,
latest sunrise -- the obliquity of the ecliptic is the larger
contributor. It's the obliquity that makes the analemma look like a
figure 8; the orbit eccentricity is what makes the north and south
lobes unequal.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
In article <2K6dnQKZlMP0_rzS...@mchsi.com>,
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
> The earth's orbit is elliptical, as a result sunrise, solar noon and
> sunset get ahead and behind. The eccentricity of the earth orbit and
> the obliquity of the ecliptic are the largest factors.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time
It might be worth mentioning that for the original question -- the
> The earth's orbit is elliptical, as a result sunrise, solar noon and
> sunset get ahead and behind. The eccentricity of the earth orbit and
> the obliquity of the ecliptic are the largest factors.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time
latest sunrise -- the obliquity of the ecliptic is the larger
contributor. It's the obliquity that makes the analemma look like a
figure 8; the orbit eccentricity is what makes the north and south
lobes unequal.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
oriel36
Jan 27, 2012, 4:57:38 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 9:14 pm, will...@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote:
> [Newsgroups snipped]
>
> In article <2K6dnQKZlMP0_rzSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dn...@mchsi.com>,
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
It is as though the distinction between the Sun and the wandering
planets never existed in astronomical circles.The analemma is an out
and out hoax that is distracting from the resolution which accounted
for the 'wandering' motions of the planets using the Earth's orbital
motion and here we have people who actually imagine they can explain a
wandering Sun using the motions of the Earth !.
An astronomer would understand the comparative resolutions which
separates the geocentric astronomy from those of the Earth's planetary
dynamics as there is no budget in any astronomy for a wandering Sun -
" Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times,
and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. " Copernicus
The absurdities which arose by assigning large loop-the-loop motions
of planets to account for retrogrades led to their abandonment for
those who understood what Copernicus did and especially Kepler and
Galileo -
"With Ptolemy it is necessary to assign to the celestial bodies
contrary movements, and make everything move from east to west and at
the same time from west to east, whereas with Copernicus all celestial
revolutions are in one direction, from west to east. And what are we
to say of the apparent movement of a planet, so uneven that it not
only goes fast at one time and slow at another, but sometimes stops
entirely and even goes backward a long way after doing so? To save
these appearances, Ptolemy introduces vast epicycles, adapting them
one by one to each planet, with certain rules about incongruous
motions–all of which can be done away with by one very simple motion
of the earth. Do you not think it extremely absurd, Simplicio, that in
Ptolemy’s construction where all planets are assigned their own
orbits, one above another, it should be necessary to say that Mars,
placed above the sun’s sphere, often falls so far that it breaks
through the sun’s orb, descends below this and gets closer to the
earth than the body of the sun is, and then a little later soars
immeasurably above it? Yet these and other anomalies are cured by a
single and simple annual movement of the earth." Galileo
http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
If there is any part of the wandering analemma Sun as a hoax that you
do not understand,and especially trying to describe that fictional
nonsense using the daily and orbital motions of the Earth then let me
know otherwise you are all engaging in intellectual and astronomical
vandalism.
Do any of you clearly understand the distinction between the motions
of the planets and the motion of the Sun as it figures into resolving
the daily and orbital motions of the Earth or are you so desperate to
model the motions of the Earth using wishful think of the clock
generated analemma which would normally exist as a harmless exercise
in photography ?.
> [Newsgroups snipped]
>
> In article <2K6dnQKZlMP0_rzSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dn...@mchsi.com>,
> Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > The earth's orbit is elliptical, as a result sunrise, solar noon and
> > sunset get ahead and behind. The eccentricity of the earth orbit and
> > the obliquity of the ecliptic are the largest factors.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time
>
> It might be worth mentioning that for the original question -- the
> latest sunrise -- the obliquity of the ecliptic is the larger
> contributor. It's the obliquity that makes the analemma look like a
> figure 8; the orbit eccentricity is what makes the north and south
> lobes unequal.
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
> Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@cfa.harvard.edu
>
> > The earth's orbit is elliptical, as a result sunrise, solar noon and
> > sunset get ahead and behind. The eccentricity of the earth orbit and
> > the obliquity of the ecliptic are the largest factors.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time
>
> It might be worth mentioning that for the original question -- the
> latest sunrise -- the obliquity of the ecliptic is the larger
> contributor. It's the obliquity that makes the analemma look like a
> figure 8; the orbit eccentricity is what makes the north and south
> lobes unequal.
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
It is as though the distinction between the Sun and the wandering
planets never existed in astronomical circles.The analemma is an out
and out hoax that is distracting from the resolution which accounted
for the 'wandering' motions of the planets using the Earth's orbital
motion and here we have people who actually imagine they can explain a
wandering Sun using the motions of the Earth !.
An astronomer would understand the comparative resolutions which
separates the geocentric astronomy from those of the Earth's planetary
dynamics as there is no budget in any astronomy for a wandering Sun -
" Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times,
and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. " Copernicus
The absurdities which arose by assigning large loop-the-loop motions
of planets to account for retrogrades led to their abandonment for
those who understood what Copernicus did and especially Kepler and
Galileo -
"With Ptolemy it is necessary to assign to the celestial bodies
contrary movements, and make everything move from east to west and at
the same time from west to east, whereas with Copernicus all celestial
revolutions are in one direction, from west to east. And what are we
to say of the apparent movement of a planet, so uneven that it not
only goes fast at one time and slow at another, but sometimes stops
entirely and even goes backward a long way after doing so? To save
these appearances, Ptolemy introduces vast epicycles, adapting them
one by one to each planet, with certain rules about incongruous
motions–all of which can be done away with by one very simple motion
of the earth. Do you not think it extremely absurd, Simplicio, that in
Ptolemy’s construction where all planets are assigned their own
orbits, one above another, it should be necessary to say that Mars,
placed above the sun’s sphere, often falls so far that it breaks
through the sun’s orb, descends below this and gets closer to the
earth than the body of the sun is, and then a little later soars
immeasurably above it? Yet these and other anomalies are cured by a
single and simple annual movement of the earth." Galileo
http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
If there is any part of the wandering analemma Sun as a hoax that you
do not understand,and especially trying to describe that fictional
nonsense using the daily and orbital motions of the Earth then let me
know otherwise you are all engaging in intellectual and astronomical
vandalism.
Do any of you clearly understand the distinction between the motions
of the planets and the motion of the Sun as it figures into resolving
the daily and orbital motions of the Earth or are you so desperate to
model the motions of the Earth using wishful think of the clock
generated analemma which would normally exist as a harmless exercise
in photography ?.
Ben
Jan 27, 2012, 4:47:27 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 25, 4:14 am, Science Fan <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
Back to the poster's original question: What is the *name* of the
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
phenomenon? Well, I have consulted my scrolls and have not
found a name for it so I deem it necessary for us to come up
with a meaningful neologism to refer to this peculiar situation.
The phenomenon is not unlike the "libration in latitude" one
encounters in lunar calculation. Since it takes a couple of weeks
for the numbers to "catch up" while the Sun rounds the south end
the analemma you might call it *dislibration*.
Your thoughts, anyone?
Ben
Androcles
Jan 27, 2012, 6:32:21 PM1/27/12
to
"Ben" <b.the...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:73722fd8-2538-440d...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com...
The list of phenomena which have no name is endless, and
those which do are often inappropriate. Consider newton, ampere,
volt, quark, charge, weight, mass, etc., etc. Call it a therell if you like.
If the beauty of Helen of Troy launched a thousand ships then the
amount of beauty needed to launch one ship is a millihelen.
Ben
Jan 27, 2012, 6:39:52 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 3:32 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
> "Ben" <b.therr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It was C.S Pierce who one complained, " We have all suffered a
tidal wave of nominalism."
Ben
> "Ben" <b.therr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> ===========================================
> The list of phenomena which have no name is endless, and
> those which do are often inappropriate. Consider newton, ampere,
> volt, quark, charge, weight, mass, etc., etc. Call it a therell if you like.
> If the beauty of Helen of Troy launched a thousand ships then the
> amount of beauty needed to launch one ship is a millihelen.
Ha!
> ===========================================
> The list of phenomena which have no name is endless, and
> those which do are often inappropriate. Consider newton, ampere,
> volt, quark, charge, weight, mass, etc., etc. Call it a therell if you like.
> If the beauty of Helen of Troy launched a thousand ships then the
> amount of beauty needed to launch one ship is a millihelen.
It was C.S Pierce who one complained, " We have all suffered a
tidal wave of nominalism."
Ben
Androcles
Jan 27, 2012, 6:43:57 PM1/27/12
to
news:5bab818e-fa2f-449e...@n8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
=======================================
Hmm... I'm surprised it wasn't Ambrose Bierce, the names are similar.
Hmm... I'm surprised it wasn't Ambrose Bierce, the names are similar.
Sam Wormley
Jan 27, 2012, 9:10:11 PM1/27/12
to
oriel36
Jan 28, 2012, 5:16:02 AM1/28/12
to
choice,there is no room for a wandering analemma Sun as the only
acceptable observations of wandering motions are the planets
including the two 'wanderers' seen here being overtaken by the Earth -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html
Want to explain a wandering analemma Sun using the daily and orbital
motions of the Earth,and this is what is attempted in this thread,
then it is not so much a defiance of astronomical principles but a
complete ignorance of them.
You have no sense of the sheer volume of information pouring through
this thread and,for the first time, the main framework for the unit of
timekeeping where the Egyptians used the annual rising of Sirius as a
gauge for the 1461 natural daily cycles that complete 4 annual
circuits with the transfer to 1461 rotations in 4 orbital circuits as
a complicated process but the idea of explaining the daily and orbital
motions of the Earth using stellar circumpolar motion is as dumb as
the wandering analemma Sun.
The ancient astronomers actually tell you how they worked it out hence
the fundamental unit of time is a proportion of 1461 days to 4 annual
cycles so they built on this structure which can be reduced to a
proportion of 365 1/4 days/rotations to 4 years/orbital circuits.
"..on account of the precession of the rising of the Divine Sothis by
one day in the course of 4 years... it shall be, that the year of 360
days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day as feast of
Benevolent Gods [the pharaoh and family] be from this day after every
4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year, whereby all men
shall learn, that what was a little defective in the order as regards
the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which are contained in
the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits, are now corrected and
improved .." Canopus Decree
> The earth's orbit is elliptical, as a result sunrise, solar noon and
> sunset get ahead and behind. The eccentricity of the earth orbit and
> the obliquity of the ecliptic are the largest factors.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time
begins Mar 1st and ends 4 orbital cycles later on Feb 29th where
genuine astronomers can enjoy the freedom to rework the 1461 days and
rotations into their respective formats and especially the separation
of daily and orbital dynamics in their pure state or as the calendar
convenience that spawns the Ra/Dec framework.
It took them 40 years to deal with the Piltdown Man hoax even though
it interrupted investigations into biological evolution even when the
perpetrator basically cottoned on that his hoax had gone too far.You
have no idea the damage that is being done by what is effectively a
harmless photographic exercise of charting the Sun position at clock
noon using the human convenience of 365/366 day calendar system and
then imagining that a wandering Sun can e explained by way of the
dynamics of the Earth.This is a complete affront to astronomy and it
has gone on long enough.
oriel36
Jan 28, 2012, 2:44:00 PM1/28/12
to
I have seen enough.
A generation who imagines a wandering analemma Sun can be explained by
the daily and orbital motions of the Earth when they now see that the
wandering motions of the planets are common to both geocentric
astronomers and astronomer beginning with Copernicus is finished
astronomically.They either accept the analemma is a damaging
distraction and a hoax or live with that ignominious junk born of
right ascension reasoning.
I have these chimpanzees attach themselves to my posts but no more,you
are all men and I suggest you act like men for a change and begin
working out why the Sun doesn't wander but how Copernicus resolved the
apparent wandering motions of the planets using modern imaging,common
sense and the original texts of Copernicus,Galileo and Kepler -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Not one of my astronomical compatriots through history has been
treated this badly and for so long but that reflects on the hatred for
astronomical tradition shown by the wandering Sun crowd for if things
were right,this would have passed quickly from an exercise in
technical and historical forensics to productive work where real
astronomy resides.
A generation who imagines a wandering analemma Sun can be explained by
the daily and orbital motions of the Earth when they now see that the
wandering motions of the planets are common to both geocentric
astronomers and astronomer beginning with Copernicus is finished
astronomically.They either accept the analemma is a damaging
distraction and a hoax or live with that ignominious junk born of
right ascension reasoning.
I have these chimpanzees attach themselves to my posts but no more,you
are all men and I suggest you act like men for a change and begin
working out why the Sun doesn't wander but how Copernicus resolved the
apparent wandering motions of the planets using modern imaging,common
sense and the original texts of Copernicus,Galileo and Kepler -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Not one of my astronomical compatriots through history has been
treated this badly and for so long but that reflects on the hatred for
astronomical tradition shown by the wandering Sun crowd for if things
were right,this would have passed quickly from an exercise in
technical and historical forensics to productive work where real
astronomy resides.
Sam Wormley
Jan 28, 2012, 3:34:46 PM1/28/12
to
On 1/28/12 1:44 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> They either accept the analemma is a damaging
> distraction and a hoax or live with that ignominious junk born of
> right ascension reasoning.
Anthony Ayiomamitis has made these excellent representations
> They either accept the analemma is a damaging
> distraction and a hoax or live with that ignominious junk born of
> right ascension reasoning.
of the analemma written on the sky by observing and photographing
the sky!
> http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Solar-Analemma.htm
oriel36
Jan 28, 2012, 4:32:19 PM1/28/12
to
Flamsteed decided to justify stellar circumpolar using the daily and
orbital dynamics of the Earth and afterwards which is the entity you
subscribe to including a wandering analemma Sun,something which
beggars belief given that the technical allowances for a wandering Sun
is nil whereas the wandering nature of planets is attested back to
antiquity and the main argument which Copernicus used to explain the
orbital motion of the Earth.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060422.html
There is nowhere to go from here,a full recourse to obliterate the
analemma hoax,however unintentional it may be,is now out of the
question as the resolution for retrogrades wold now be classed as a
general principle with the power of contemporary imaging now moving on
to cross referencing planetary details to arrive at common principles
for terrestrial effects but with investigators caught up in a
wandering Sun hoax, a progression from technical forensics to
productive topics is unthinkable in this atmosphere.
You are free to enjoy the analemma as you see it but what you cannot
have are the wandering planets and a wandering Sun in the same
celestial arena .Again I have seen enough of the commonplace mind to
last a lifetime,at least here.
Sam Wormley
Jan 28, 2012, 5:14:35 PM1/28/12
to
On 1/28/12 3:32 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> You are free to enjoy the analemma as you see it but what you cannot
> have are the wandering planets and a wandering Sun in the same
> celestial arena.
I do enjoy Anthony's excellent analemma photography!
> You are free to enjoy the analemma as you see it but what you cannot
> have are the wandering planets and a wandering Sun in the same
> celestial arena.
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Solar-Analemma.htm
Furthermore, I share his work with my college students.
One's perspective can certainly simplify the understanding
of pattern's of planetary motion. Praise be to Copernicus,
Kepler, Galileo and Newton.
palsing
Jan 28, 2012, 9:01:44 PM1/28/12
to
On Jan 28, 1:32 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again I have seen enough of the commonplace mind to
> last a lifetime,at least here.
So... you're leaving?
> Again I have seen enough of the commonplace mind to
> last a lifetime,at least here.
palsing
Jan 28, 2012, 9:08:41 PM1/28/12
to
On Jan 28, 2:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One's perspective can certainly simplify the understanding
> of pattern's of planetary motion. Praise be to Copernicus,
> Kepler, Galileo and Newton.
http://tinyurl.com/6v64rke
> One's perspective can certainly simplify the understanding
> of pattern's of planetary motion. Praise be to Copernicus,
> Kepler, Galileo and Newton.
Unfortunately, Gerald's perspective is his reality... and he only has
one perspective.
\Paul A
oriel36
Jan 29, 2012, 3:39:41 AM1/29/12
to
On Jan 28, 10:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/28/12 3:32 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > You are free to enjoy the analemma as you see it but what you cannot
> > have are the wandering planets and a wandering Sun in the same
> > celestial arena.
>
> I do enjoy Anthony's excellent analemma photography!
> http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Solar-Analemma.htm
>
> Furthermore, I share his work with my college students.
>
Talking yourselves into irrelevance is worse than being wrong.
> On 1/28/12 3:32 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > You are free to enjoy the analemma as you see it but what you cannot
> > have are the wandering planets and a wandering Sun in the same
> > celestial arena.
>
> I do enjoy Anthony's excellent analemma photography!
> http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Solar-Analemma.htm
>
> Furthermore, I share his work with my college students.
>
> One's perspective can certainly simplify the understanding
> of pattern's of planetary motion. Praise be to Copernicus,
> Kepler, Galileo and Newton.
background along with the resolution which is that they are an
illusion seen by the Earth overtaking the planet -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg
"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils,leading
the individual planets into their respective orbits,quite bare and
very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars
traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you
see looped towards the center,with one extra, making nine times, while
at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times "Kepler
There is only room for the wandering planets in the celestial arena so
the wandering analemma Sun is repulsive when compared the insights
and methods of the great astronomers even though you use their names
yet misrepresent their works.The analemma is an Ra/Dec generated
concept so it is the most visible sign of the bigger picture much like
the Piltdown Man skull represents bigger flaws in reasoning yet in
comparison,the analemma and what it represents is many,many magnitudes
greater in damage.
So,what you are all going to talk about with this hoax right at the
center of astronomy is hardly my concern,this is forensics and you can
only go so far with that .
Ben
Jan 29, 2012, 11:17:17 AM1/29/12
to
On Jan 25, 4:14 am, Science Fan <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
How about "diurnal lag". It's fairly descriptive although not very
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
specific.
Ben
Sam Wormley
Jan 29, 2012, 12:57:51 PM1/29/12
to
On 1/29/12 2:39 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> There is only room for the wandering planets in the celestial arena so
> the wandering analemma Sun is repulsive when compared the insights
> and methods of the great astronomers even though you use their names
> yet misrepresent their works.The analemma is an Ra/Dec generated
> concept so it is the most visible sign of the bigger picture much like
> the Piltdown Man skull represents bigger flaws in reasoning yet in
> comparison,the analemma and what it represents is many,many magnitudes
> greater in damage.
The analemma is a graphic representation of the equation of time.
> There is only room for the wandering planets in the celestial arena so
> the wandering analemma Sun is repulsive when compared the insights
> and methods of the great astronomers even though you use their names
> yet misrepresent their works.The analemma is an Ra/Dec generated
> concept so it is the most visible sign of the bigger picture much like
> the Piltdown Man skull represents bigger flaws in reasoning yet in
> comparison,the analemma and what it represents is many,many magnitudes
> greater in damage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Analemma_Earth.png
oriel36
Jan 29, 2012, 1:49:36 PM1/29/12
to
On Jan 29, 5:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/29/12 2:39 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > There is only room for the wandering planets in the celestial arena so
> > the wandering analemma Sun is repulsive when compared the insights
> > and methods of the great astronomers even though you use their names
> > yet misrepresent their works.The analemma is an Ra/Dec generated
> > concept so it is the most visible sign of the bigger picture much like
> > the Piltdown Man skull represents bigger flaws in reasoning yet in
> > comparison,the analemma and what it represents is many,many magnitudes
> > greater in damage.
>
> The analemma is a graphic representation of the equation of time.
The analemma is a disruptive hoax that is preventing necessary
> On 1/29/12 2:39 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > There is only room for the wandering planets in the celestial arena so
> > the wandering analemma Sun is repulsive when compared the insights
> > and methods of the great astronomers even though you use their names
> > yet misrepresent their works.The analemma is an Ra/Dec generated
> > concept so it is the most visible sign of the bigger picture much like
> > the Piltdown Man skull represents bigger flaws in reasoning yet in
> > comparison,the analemma and what it represents is many,many magnitudes
> > greater in damage.
>
> The analemma is a graphic representation of the equation of time.
modifications from making it into wider circulation.
There is nothing left to say,if the scientific community,should it
wish to call itself that,is determined to remain stuck with a
wandering Sun explained by the daily and orbital motions of the Earth
then it condemns itself to a condition of irrelevance as the budget
for such a ridiculous analemma ideology is nil.The true wanderers,the
planets, and their wandering motion will continue to be the only valid
perspective and the resolution for retrogrades is the main argument
for the Earth's orbital motion between Venus and Mars but I don't need
to go that far,do I.
Very different feeling knowing that we all are looking at the same
picture and especially the use of modern imaging to counter the
analemma distraction with the main Western astronomical insight that
uses the wandering motions of the planets to account for our own
orbital motion,each wandering motion different than the next yet all
telling the same great story -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100613.html
The wider world needs a few points of rest where it can enjoy genuine
achievements such as that of Copernicus and we just don;t need a
useless ideology of a wandering analemma Sun competing for attention
with the true wanderers - the planets.
Gavino
Jan 29, 2012, 4:25:32 PM1/29/12
to
"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7582074a-ccf9-44c0...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
(or pretend not to).
Hint: it has absolutely *nothing* to do with wandering planets
(or a 'wandering Sun').
news:7582074a-ccf9-44c0...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>The analemma is a disruptive hoax that is preventing necessary
>modifications from making it into wider circulation.
If you think the analemma is a 'hoax', then you don't really understand it
>modifications from making it into wider circulation.
(or pretend not to).
Hint: it has absolutely *nothing* to do with wandering planets
(or a 'wandering Sun').
oriel36
Jan 30, 2012, 4:08:34 AM1/30/12
to
On Jan 29, 9:25 pm, "Gavino" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
up and not least the modification to 'axial precession' as it is
currently classed and analysed. The motion of the Sun is seen to move
from horizon to horizon in a direct way as it scribes greater or
smaller arcs depending on where the Earth is in its orbital
cycle ,there is no figure '8',just a continuous spiral captured in
this contemporary sequential imaging as the Earth turns in its daily
cycle and simultaneously,yet separately,makes a circuit of the Sun -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120121.html
The analemma is a distraction as it tries to impose an alternative
structure through timekeeping averages so what would normally be a
harmless exercise for photographers turns into a disruptive hoax which
prevents a clearer view of what causes the seasons and variations in
the natural noon cycles.
> Hint: it has absolutely *nothing* to do with wandering planets
> (or a 'wandering Sun').
The annual variations in the height of the Sun from June to December
require an additional orbital component which amounts to a traveling
axis around which the polar coordinates turn to the central Sun.The
components of the daily rotational characteristics and the orbital
components are contained in the following graphic -
http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
The discontinuous line represents the orbital characteristics of a
traveling axis running through the center of the Earth from Arctic to
Antarctic circles with an orthogonal line running through the center
of the Earth from roughly he tropic of Cancer to the tropic of
Capricorn.The polar coordinates turn in a circle about the
discontinuous line so this explains why at the North/South poles they
turn through the circle of illumination at the equinoxes which divide
6 months of daylight from 6 months of darkness depending on where the
Earth is in its orbital cycle.Ignoring the direction of the arrows,the
annual precession of the polar coordinates to the central Sun is more
or less like this -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth_precession.svg
It is a quasi-rotation as it originates from the orbital behavior of
the Earth and the polar coordinates act like a beacon or a window into
the orbital behavior of the planet.A simple imitation analogy with a
broom handle substituting for the daily rotation of the Earth in
fixing it constantly to an external point at 23 1/2 degrees off the
line of your body as you walk/orbit a central object/Sun will show
that the tip of the broom will precess to the central Sun about the
orbital axis formed by the line of your body and seen in the earlier
graphic as a discontinuous line.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
If the graphic above expressed the June Solstice with the Sun to the
right,the angle between the rotational axis and the line orthogonal to
the orbital axis is acute hence the Sun scribes a large arc from
horizon to horizon and, half an annual circuit later, as the Northern
polar coordinates turn around to the December orbital point,the angle
between the rotational axis and the orbital line becomes obtuse hence
smaller arcs.At the equinox as the polar coordinates turn to split the
circle of illumination and mid-way between the greater and smaller
arcs,the rotational axis lines up with the orbital axis from a view
consistent with the other two descriptions using the graphic above.
No figure '8' Sun distracting from daily and orbital dynamics and the
new approach to the reason we have the seasons and the variations in
the natural noon cycle.It deserves a formal presentation but
unfortunately I have no way of knowing at what level these things are
understood even when cross referencing using images of other planets
is more than sufficient to arrive at common principles and motivate
astronomers to adapting to the new approach.This was never an exercise
in disproving a hoax like the analemma,it was a much weightier matter
of adjusting 'axial precession' to an orbital feature thereby easing
the strain on explaining the seasons properly.
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7582074a-ccf9-44c0...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
> >The analemma is a disruptive hoax that is preventing necessary
> >modifications from making it into wider circulation.
>
> If you think the analemma is a 'hoax', then you don't really understand it
> (or pretend not to).
>
I have a few proofreading issues and a few technical details to clear
> news:7582074a-ccf9-44c0...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
> >The analemma is a disruptive hoax that is preventing necessary
> >modifications from making it into wider circulation.
>
> If you think the analemma is a 'hoax', then you don't really understand it
> (or pretend not to).
>
up and not least the modification to 'axial precession' as it is
currently classed and analysed. The motion of the Sun is seen to move
from horizon to horizon in a direct way as it scribes greater or
smaller arcs depending on where the Earth is in its orbital
cycle ,there is no figure '8',just a continuous spiral captured in
this contemporary sequential imaging as the Earth turns in its daily
cycle and simultaneously,yet separately,makes a circuit of the Sun -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120121.html
The analemma is a distraction as it tries to impose an alternative
structure through timekeeping averages so what would normally be a
harmless exercise for photographers turns into a disruptive hoax which
prevents a clearer view of what causes the seasons and variations in
the natural noon cycles.
> Hint: it has absolutely *nothing* to do with wandering planets
> (or a 'wandering Sun').
require an additional orbital component which amounts to a traveling
axis around which the polar coordinates turn to the central Sun.The
components of the daily rotational characteristics and the orbital
components are contained in the following graphic -
http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
The discontinuous line represents the orbital characteristics of a
traveling axis running through the center of the Earth from Arctic to
Antarctic circles with an orthogonal line running through the center
of the Earth from roughly he tropic of Cancer to the tropic of
Capricorn.The polar coordinates turn in a circle about the
discontinuous line so this explains why at the North/South poles they
turn through the circle of illumination at the equinoxes which divide
6 months of daylight from 6 months of darkness depending on where the
Earth is in its orbital cycle.Ignoring the direction of the arrows,the
annual precession of the polar coordinates to the central Sun is more
or less like this -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth_precession.svg
It is a quasi-rotation as it originates from the orbital behavior of
the Earth and the polar coordinates act like a beacon or a window into
the orbital behavior of the planet.A simple imitation analogy with a
broom handle substituting for the daily rotation of the Earth in
fixing it constantly to an external point at 23 1/2 degrees off the
line of your body as you walk/orbit a central object/Sun will show
that the tip of the broom will precess to the central Sun about the
orbital axis formed by the line of your body and seen in the earlier
graphic as a discontinuous line.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
If the graphic above expressed the June Solstice with the Sun to the
right,the angle between the rotational axis and the line orthogonal to
the orbital axis is acute hence the Sun scribes a large arc from
horizon to horizon and, half an annual circuit later, as the Northern
polar coordinates turn around to the December orbital point,the angle
between the rotational axis and the orbital line becomes obtuse hence
smaller arcs.At the equinox as the polar coordinates turn to split the
circle of illumination and mid-way between the greater and smaller
arcs,the rotational axis lines up with the orbital axis from a view
consistent with the other two descriptions using the graphic above.
No figure '8' Sun distracting from daily and orbital dynamics and the
new approach to the reason we have the seasons and the variations in
the natural noon cycle.It deserves a formal presentation but
unfortunately I have no way of knowing at what level these things are
understood even when cross referencing using images of other planets
is more than sufficient to arrive at common principles and motivate
astronomers to adapting to the new approach.This was never an exercise
in disproving a hoax like the analemma,it was a much weightier matter
of adjusting 'axial precession' to an orbital feature thereby easing
the strain on explaining the seasons properly.
Sam Wormley
Jan 30, 2012, 11:11:37 AM1/30/12
to
On 1/30/12 3:08 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> The analemma is a distraction as it tries to impose an alternative
> structure through timekeeping averages...
> The analemma is a distraction as it tries to impose an alternative
Gerald obviously does not understand the analemma!
Sam Wormley
Jan 30, 2012, 11:20:37 AM1/30/12
to
analemma can be traced by plotting the position of the Sun as viewed
from a fixed position on Earth at the same clock time every day for an
entire year. The resulting curve resembles a lemniscate of Bernoulli.
This curve is commonly printed on globes, usually in the eastern Pacific
Ocean, the only large tropical region with very little land. It is
possible, though challenging, to photograph the analemma, by leaving the
camera in a fixed position for an entire year and snapping images on
24-hour intervals (or some multiple thereof).
oriel36
Jan 30, 2012, 12:37:05 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 4:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/12 10:11 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 1/30/12 3:08 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> >> The analemma is a distraction as it tries to impose an alternative
> >> structure through timekeeping averages...
>
> > Gerald obviously does not understand the analemma!
>
> Since the Earth's *mean solar day* is almost exactly 24 hours, an
> analemma can be traced by plotting the position of the Sun as viewed
> from a fixed position on Earth at the same clock time every day for an
> entire year.
There are 1461 natural noon cycles coincident with 4 orbital period of
> On 1/30/12 10:11 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 1/30/12 3:08 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> >> The analemma is a distraction as it tries to impose an alternative
> >> structure through timekeeping averages...
>
> > Gerald obviously does not understand the analemma!
>
> Since the Earth's *mean solar day* is almost exactly 24 hours, an
> analemma can be traced by plotting the position of the Sun as viewed
> from a fixed position on Earth at the same clock time every day for an
> entire year.
the Earth to the nearest rotation.As daily and orbital motions are
separate,the correspondence between the natural AM/PM cycle and the
24 hour AM/PM cycle is naturally formatted by the Equation of Time as
365 such daily events from Mar1st 2010 to Feb 28th 2011 and 366 times
from Mar 1st 2011 until Feb 29th 2012.
A clever person would then perceive that the segregation of the annual
cycles into a non leap year of 365 rotations and a leap year annual
cycle of 366 rotations means that the Equation of Time is a
discontinuous system which cannot express the daily and orbital
dynamics within a pure annual cycle that is calculated by means of a
reduction of the parent observation of 1461 rotations to 4 orbital
circuits down to 365 1/4 rotations to 1 orbital circuit.
The interlocking systems of daily and orbital motions are as
complicated as the workings of the human body notwithstanding the
added complications of human timekeeping overlaid on these dynamics.If
you cannot keep up then just say so.
> The resulting curve resembles a lemniscate of Bernoulli.
> This curve is commonly printed on globes, usually in the eastern Pacific
> Ocean, the only large tropical region with very little land. It is
> possible, though challenging, to photograph the analemma, by leaving the
> camera in a fixed position for an entire year and snapping images on
> 24-hour intervals (or some multiple thereof).
all the billions of euro/dollars sucked up by researchers on climate,I
am here explaining the seasons with all the available graphics and
imaging on the internet along with the central theme of the thread
which is why observations of natural noon show a variation from cycle
to cycle.Instead of 'tilt' to the Sun,the polar coordinates act like a
beacon for the orbital behavior of the Earth which is cross referenced
with Uranus and its East to West orbital component as the polar
coordinates turn through the circle of illumination from the years
2001 to 2007 -
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
I passed by a high school today and smiled knowing that one day people
would come to their senses and teach students the new way to approach
the seasons by using a tool that was always lacking,the ability using
contemporary magnification power to compare planetary features and
draw common principles which ease explanations such as why natural
noon is never equal and what causes the seasons and the Sun to scribe
greater and smaller arcs at different orbital points.The people
following the analemma hoax don't stand a chance and that means you
and by association, your students.
oriel36
Jan 30, 2012, 12:44:36 PM1/30/12
to
the central Sun as a signature of the orbital motion of the Earth and
you will have done a day's work as an astronomer and the same goes for
anyone who would dare speak of daily and annual temperature
fluctuations -
http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
Adjust the inclination of Uranus to that of the Earth and the common
principles emerge for although the daily rotation of Uranus runs South
to North and parallel with the equatorial rings,the planet also turns
East to West to the central Sun as a signature of its orbital motion -
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
Something else which I forgot - it is actually satisfying and fun
assembling the motions to create the effects of the seasons and
variations in the natural noon cycle.
Sam Wormley
Jan 30, 2012, 12:55:36 PM1/30/12
to
On 1/30/12 11:37 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> I passed by a high school today and smiled knowing that one day people
> would come to their senses...
> I passed by a high school today and smiled knowing that one day people
If you mean someday people will embrace your way of thinking, Gerald,
it will never happen. Your rubbish will die with you.
oriel36
Jan 30, 2012, 1:28:28 PM1/30/12
to
I wrote.You cannot innovate if the end result is grandstanding or to
be the first to announce a result or conclusion,for me astronomy is
not just a blend of talent and effort,it knows how to use contemporary
tools and that is why I smiled as I passed the school,all the old
falsehoods are obliterated with imaging and graphics and many of the
older conceptions such as the seasons and the variations in the
natural noon cycle are modified using cross referencing planetary
details.
When nobody was talking about rotation and plate tectonics,I was
working with the 26 mile spherical deviation of the planet and plate
tectonics and it is because the uneven rotational gradient between
equatorial and polar latitudes is being held up by the wander analemma
crowd who insist on 1465 rotations in 4 orbital circuits that the
issue can't get off the ground over the simple fact that the
equatorial Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees and 1037.5 miles an
hour and a full 24901 mile equatorial circumference in 24 hours so you
dummies can have your wandering analemma Sun and the right ascension
reasoning that generates it.You see,it is not a disproof of the
analemma hoax,but what the hoax is disrupting and it is considerable
given the links between daily and planetary dynamics and their
terrestrial effects.
I will make it up to those people I love close by to me who have made
sacrifices even while you run around teaching junk to students that
bear no relation to what actually goes on yet contemporary imaging is
so amazingly productive that the necessary modifications will be made
in due course just as they are slowly adapting rotation for plate
tectonics but will soon discover they will run into the spherical
deviation of the Earth which fits neatly with differential rotation.I
get to see things modified even as I live and so what if attribution
is poor,those students will eventually get to enjoy astronomy as they
should.
Commentators are ten a penny,they usually have doctorates,but real
astronomical innovators will seize what they can and turn it into
something new and vibrant,that is how I did it and expect others to do
and this is what makes astronomy a chain of achievements even if
humanity took a 350 year vacation from it.
Ben
Jan 30, 2012, 3:27:46 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 25, 4:14 am, Science Fan <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
You could call it the "Sole ostinato" ( stubborn Sun) and attribute
> What's the name of the phenomenon that causes the sun to continue to
> rise later, even though the winter solstice has passed? TIA.
the term to Piazzi or someone. I'm confident Piazzi never used the
term - but he should have.
Ben
palsing
Jan 30, 2012, 4:32:48 PM1/30/12
to
are two completely different things.
Today I passed by a high school and frowned because I knew that Gerald
could never actually pass high school science, as taught there...
which is a shame, because...
http://tinyurl.com/7jtw768
oriel36
Jan 30, 2012, 4:51:51 PM1/30/12
to
I see these chimpanzees jump up and down once I write and it is all
very well and good however it doesn't detract from the realization
that the explanation for the seasons is tied to the explanation for
beacon for the orbital behavior of the Earth as it swings around in a
circle/cycle to the central Sun hence the polar day/night cycle as
those coordinates turn through the circle of illumination at the
equinoxes at it takes only an imitation analogy using a broom to work
through the details found in the following graphic -
http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
With an expenditure of many billions each year and something as
immediate as the annual temperature fluctuations are not accounted for
dynamically even as they are now in this thread.
I am not exactly sure what it is that people want,do they wish to rely
on the old 'tilt to the orbital plane/Sun' ideology when contemporary
imaging demonstrates two separate rotations to the central Sun and
these motions combine to generate not only the variations in the
natural noon cycle but more importantly how daily and orbital motions
combine to create the seasons as the polar coordinates turn in a
circle to positions that are acute and obtuse to the line drawn from
the tropic of Capricorn to the tropic of Cancer as seen in the graphic
above.
The analemma is a bad hoax but what is worse is the inability to put
contemporary imaging power to good use.I don't think the ability to
ignore either the hoax or the productive side of things is
impressive,it just signals an irrelevance and one I wouldn't wish on
anyone.So be it.
very well and good however it doesn't detract from the realization
that the explanation for the seasons is tied to the explanation for
variations in the natural noon cycles.
Students can grasp that the Earth's polar coordinates act like a
beacon for the orbital behavior of the Earth as it swings around in a
circle/cycle to the central Sun hence the polar day/night cycle as
those coordinates turn through the circle of illumination at the
equinoxes at it takes only an imitation analogy using a broom to work
through the details found in the following graphic -
http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
With an expenditure of many billions each year and something as
immediate as the annual temperature fluctuations are not accounted for
dynamically even as they are now in this thread.
I am not exactly sure what it is that people want,do they wish to rely
on the old 'tilt to the orbital plane/Sun' ideology when contemporary
imaging demonstrates two separate rotations to the central Sun and
these motions combine to generate not only the variations in the
natural noon cycle but more importantly how daily and orbital motions
combine to create the seasons as the polar coordinates turn in a
circle to positions that are acute and obtuse to the line drawn from
the tropic of Capricorn to the tropic of Cancer as seen in the graphic
above.
The analemma is a bad hoax but what is worse is the inability to put
contemporary imaging power to good use.I don't think the ability to
ignore either the hoax or the productive side of things is
impressive,it just signals an irrelevance and one I wouldn't wish on
anyone.So be it.
palsing
Jan 30, 2012, 5:29:23 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 1:51 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
I don't think that you realize that in the graphic you supplied, the
horizontal black line and the associated light-green circle represent
the plane of the Earth's orbit around the sun, and the dark-green line
represents the plane of the earth's equator... and that the 2 planes
are tilted 23.5 degrees with respect to each other... do you?
The graphic is perfect, but you somehow think it represents something
else, right?
\Paul A
> http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
>
> I am not exactly sure what it is that people want,do they wish to rely
> on the old 'tilt to the orbital plane/Sun' ideology...
> I am not exactly sure what it is that people want,do they wish to rely
I don't think that you realize that in the graphic you supplied, the
horizontal black line and the associated light-green circle represent
the plane of the Earth's orbit around the sun, and the dark-green line
represents the plane of the earth's equator... and that the 2 planes
are tilted 23.5 degrees with respect to each other... do you?
The graphic is perfect, but you somehow think it represents something
else, right?
\Paul A
Androcles
Jan 30, 2012, 5:43:09 PM1/30/12
to
"palsing" <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d4dbf25-c14e-4335...@p12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
http://tinyurl.com/palsing
Androcles
Jan 30, 2012, 5:44:41 PM1/30/12
to
news:306a43db-30ca-4813...@j15g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
You seem determined to advertise that fact with pride... strange.
On Jan 30, 1:51 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
>
> I am not exactly sure what it is that people want,do they wish to rely
> on the old 'tilt to the orbital plane/Sun' ideology...
I don't think
=======================================
> http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
>
> I am not exactly sure what it is that people want,do they wish to rely
> on the old 'tilt to the orbital plane/Sun' ideology...
I don't think
You seem determined to advertise that fact with pride... strange.
Brian Tung
Jan 30, 2012, 6:38:43 PM1/30/12
to
Ben wrote:
> You could call it the "Sole ostinato" ( stubborn Sun) and attribute
> the term to Piazzi or someone. I'm confident Piazzi never used the
> term - but he should have.
>
> Ben
How about "clessidral skew"? (Clessidra is Italian for
> You could call it the "Sole ostinato" ( stubborn Sun) and attribute
> the term to Piazzi or someone. I'm confident Piazzi never used the
> term - but he should have.
>
> Ben
"hourglass," which refers in this case both to the passing
of time and the shape of an annual graph of daytime--see,
for instance, the insert in the January issues of Sky and
Telescope.)
--
Brian Tung <brian....@gmail.com> (posting from Google Groups)
The Astronomy Corner at http://www.astronomycorner.net/
Unofficial C5+ Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/
My PleiadAtlas Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ at http://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html
oriel36
Jan 30, 2012, 7:04:32 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 11:38 pm, Brian Tung <brian.y.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > You could call it the "Sole ostinato" ( stubborn Sun) and attribute
> > the term to Piazzi or someone. I'm confident Piazzi never used the
> > term - but he should have.
>
> > Ben
>
> How about "clessidral skew"? (Clessidra is Italian for
> "hourglass," which refers in this case both to the passing
> of time and the shape of an annual graph of daytime--see,
> for instance, the insert in the January issues of Sky and
> Telescope.)
>
> --
> Brian Tung <brian.y.t...@gmail.com> (posting from Google Groups)
> Ben wrote:
> > You could call it the "Sole ostinato" ( stubborn Sun) and attribute
> > the term to Piazzi or someone. I'm confident Piazzi never used the
> > term - but he should have.
>
> > Ben
>
> How about "clessidral skew"? (Clessidra is Italian for
> "hourglass," which refers in this case both to the passing
> of time and the shape of an annual graph of daytime--see,
> for instance, the insert in the January issues of Sky and
> Telescope.)
>
> --
> The Astronomy Corner athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/
> Unofficial C5+ Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/
> My PleiadAtlas Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/
> Unofficial C5+ Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/
Here you go Tung from your own FAQ on the seasons -
"It's important to note that although either end of the axis points
sometimes toward the Sun and sometimes away, that's not because the
axis actually "wobbles." The effect is really caused by the
relationship between the axis and the Earth's motion around the Sun."
Brian Tung
You want the wandering Sun to cause variations in natural noon and you
want 'tilt' to cause the seasons so now you have to explain the
greater and smaller arcs of the Sun along with a figure '8' Sun.An
intelligent person would quickly lose their mind so drop the hoax in
order to focus on the combined daily and orbital cycles scribed by the
direct arcs of the Sun as it moves from horizon to horizon
It is time to drop the 'no tilt/no seasons' ideology and begin with
explaining the planet's two day/night cycles properly as arising from
separate dynamics and specifically the polar day/night cycle
coincident with the orbital period of the planet,once that it done it
is easier to graft in daily rotation and assemble a proper picture of
the seasonal cycles.
Be a man,the polar coordinates turn in a complete circle to the
central Sun in one annual circuit as seen in the graphic (minus the
arrows) and more importantly the visible affirmation of this via
Uranus -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth_precession.svg
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
If there were astronomers here,the issue would be the adjustment to
'axial precession' as this is preventing the use of the orbital
component to turning the polar coordinates in a circle as seen from
the sequence of images of Uranus.
Ben
Jan 30, 2012, 7:07:52 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 3:38 pm, Brian Tung <brian.y.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > You could call it the "Sole ostinato" ( stubborn Sun) and attribute
> > the term to Piazzi or someone. I'm confident Piazzi never used the
> > term - but he should have.
>
> > Ben
>
> How about "clessidral skew"? (Clessidra is Italian for
> "hourglass," which refers in this case both to the passing
> of time and the shape of an annual graph of daytime--see,
> for instance, the insert in the January issues of Sky and
> Telescope.)
Hey that's good! Or you might call it "Clessidral slip" since
> Ben wrote:
> > You could call it the "Sole ostinato" ( stubborn Sun) and attribute
> > the term to Piazzi or someone. I'm confident Piazzi never used the
> > term - but he should have.
>
> > Ben
>
> How about "clessidral skew"? (Clessidra is Italian for
> "hourglass," which refers in this case both to the passing
> of time and the shape of an annual graph of daytime--see,
> for instance, the insert in the January issues of Sky and
> Telescope.)
it depends on a certain misalignment of the apsides.
I like that....
Ben
palsing
Jan 30, 2012, 9:55:40 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 2:44 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
> "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Aren't you the guy who continually rips people who snip? It seems to
me that it your response that is strange.
> "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
me that it your response that is strange.
palsing
Jan 30, 2012, 11:42:22 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 2:43 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
> "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
http://tinyurl.com/88be7ee
> "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
oriel36
Jan 31, 2012, 8:00:15 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 11:55 am, "Gavino" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:42e7f5f1-702d-4b7f...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >It is the orbital behavior of the planet that carries the polar
> >coordinates round in a circle and it is so easy to judge once the
> >issue is concentrated on the polar daylight/darkness cycle and
> >especially the equinoctial transition as the polar coordinates turn
> >through the circle of illumination.
>
> One of the problems in discerning fact from fiction in your posts is the
> strange language you use.
>
> You keep using the term 'polar coordinates', but obviously in a different
> sense from the conventional one:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system
> What do you mean by this term?
>
It is called the North and South poles you dummy but then again I
don't think the rest are much better.
Here is what you do -
Keep switching between the graphic and actual time lapse sequence of
the polar coordinates turning in to the central Sun reflecting the
orbital behavior of the Earth until you get it -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth_precession.svg
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
You will eventually get the reason why the Earth has a single daylight/
darkness cycle aside from daily rotation as it turns to the Sun as a
reflection of its orbital motion,if you can't interpret what you are
seeing then don't bother me again.
> > and still you want your figure '8' Sun wandering all over the place
>
> No-one is suggesting the Sun moves in a figure 8, as it's obvious to any
> casual oberver that it does not.
You had many names that I recognize from saa over the years who do
support the explanation of a figure '8' hoax using the orbital motions
of the Earth so you better convince them.
> However, its position in the sky, when plotted at the same clock time every
> day, varies along a 'figure of 8'-like curve. (*)
> For each 24 hour period between those plots, it follows a smooth spiral
> (almost circular) path.
>
> Relative to the stars, it follows a circular path along the ecliptic in the
> course of a year, so no figure of 8 (and no 'wandering' there) either.
>
> (*)The 'figure of 8' simply reflects the fact that a graph of the equation
> of time against declination takes this shape.
> But I'm sure you know that, so I don't know what your point is.
If there was a genuine astronomer around,they would have corrected you
in that as the Sun scribes the greatest arcs at the December solstice
above the equator,it scribes the smallest arcs in the Southern
hemisphere so declination has nothing whatsoever to do with the
Equation of Time.The analemma is a disruptive hoax and if you want to
pretend that it has some significance then go right on ahead,the
reasons for the seasons and variations in the natural noon cycle are
one and the same and as described in this thread.
Again,any reader who wishes to consider the orbital behavior of the
planet,aside from a basic imitation analogy can just keep switching
between the graphics and the time lapse footage as a way to cross
reference planetary details.The seasons can not be described by any
variant on 'tilt', the annual temperature fluctuations between
December and June require two separate cycles acting in concert and
especially the clarity of the quasi-rotation arising from the orbital
motion of the Earth which is presently obscured with 'axial
precession'.
The analemma is a hoax and that is conclusive.
Gavino
Jan 31, 2012, 9:00:23 AM1/31/12
to
"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f78fd4f-6f13-4ef9...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>The analemma is a hoax and that is conclusive.
What is conclusive is that you are either a troll or an idiot (probably
both).
oriel36
Jan 31, 2012, 9:30:50 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 2:00 pm, "Gavino" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Oh great,you want declination to be a component of the Equation of
Time like everyone else and then discover the Earth is not
hemispherical and variations in inclination to the Sun have nothing
whatsoever to do with variations in the natural noon cycle but all
this stuff was covered many years ago.The difference is that many
years later there is now sequential imaging which clarifies points
which were once awkward to express and especially astronomical cross
referencing.
Climate change indeed !,what I wouldn't give to find another human
being who could actually associate one 24 hour rotation of the Earth
enclosed in the 1461 days/4 orbital cycles with one daily temperature
fluctuation within a 24 hour period from daytime highs to nighttime
lows.The analemma hoax crowd insist on 1465 rotations in 1461 days
making this era particularly miserable when it comes to cause and
effect yet all the thievery of billions of euro/dollars by people who
see a good thing when they know it in pushing a carbon dioxide agenda
can't disguise how little people today want to know about what causes
the temperatures to go up and down daily and from December to June
reflecting the daily and orbital motions of the Earth.
You are merely doing what everyone else once did,throwing around
assertions without taking due care as to the physical considerations
involved and it would be no surprise to SAA readers that it would end
in tears,they have come to accept,at least those who haven't entirely
given up,that with astronomy comes great responsibility and especially
what the wider population and students are taught.It is the weakness
of Western astronomy at the moment that it already knows the nature of
the large modification to the explanation for the seasons,and by
association the variations in the natural noon cycle,but does not have
the facility to deal with this crucial modification.So,until this
happens,I bear the responsibility to keep the issues front and center
and occasionally swat away nuisances who come in with all guns blazing
but soon withdraw to the vacuous dudgeon of personal insults and that
is how I know you are finished and can join the rest.
All the same,there is the new approach to the seasons/natural noon
cycle up for discussion and that is where all this goes.
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Time like everyone else and then discover the Earth is not
hemispherical and variations in inclination to the Sun have nothing
whatsoever to do with variations in the natural noon cycle but all
this stuff was covered many years ago.The difference is that many
years later there is now sequential imaging which clarifies points
which were once awkward to express and especially astronomical cross
referencing.
Climate change indeed !,what I wouldn't give to find another human
being who could actually associate one 24 hour rotation of the Earth
enclosed in the 1461 days/4 orbital cycles with one daily temperature
fluctuation within a 24 hour period from daytime highs to nighttime
lows.The analemma hoax crowd insist on 1465 rotations in 1461 days
making this era particularly miserable when it comes to cause and
effect yet all the thievery of billions of euro/dollars by people who
see a good thing when they know it in pushing a carbon dioxide agenda
can't disguise how little people today want to know about what causes
the temperatures to go up and down daily and from December to June
reflecting the daily and orbital motions of the Earth.
You are merely doing what everyone else once did,throwing around
assertions without taking due care as to the physical considerations
involved and it would be no surprise to SAA readers that it would end
in tears,they have come to accept,at least those who haven't entirely
given up,that with astronomy comes great responsibility and especially
what the wider population and students are taught.It is the weakness
of Western astronomy at the moment that it already knows the nature of
the large modification to the explanation for the seasons,and by
association the variations in the natural noon cycle,but does not have
the facility to deal with this crucial modification.So,until this
happens,I bear the responsibility to keep the issues front and center
and occasionally swat away nuisances who come in with all guns blazing
but soon withdraw to the vacuous dudgeon of personal insults and that
is how I know you are finished and can join the rest.
All the same,there is the new approach to the seasons/natural noon
cycle up for discussion and that is where all this goes.
Androcles
Jan 31, 2012, 2:25:23 PM1/31/12
to
news:69944393-9d96-4a32...@o20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
There can hardly be anything of interest in what you don't think.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be interested in what
I didn't think?
There can hardly be anything of interest in what you don't think.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be interested in what
I didn't think?
Androcles
Jan 31, 2012, 2:29:07 PM1/31/12
to
news:1cf61335-ef85-40ac...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
========================
http://tinyurl.com/2d65ne
http://tinyurl.com/2d65ne
Androcles
Jan 31, 2012, 2:36:09 PM1/31/12
to
"Ben" <b.the...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2bb197f-395c-4b8d...@nu6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Lissajous figure:
http://tinyurl.com/6lje79x
oriel36
Jan 31, 2012, 4:09:31 PM1/31/12
to
Most readers here are followers of Newton despite the pretense that
there was a revolution at the beginning of the 20th century as the
clockwork solar system based on right ascension really started to bite
as more and more information looked for new avenues to open up.In
effect,relativity was a capitulation as it offered mathematicians
complete freedom from physical considerations as opposed to the
tenuous links that Newton's absolute/relative time,space and motion
had with the parent astronomical insights that stretch before all
readers,even today.
I discovered that relativists have the measure of their
opponents,their real fear is going back into Newton and clarifying
what he was actually doing and the original empiricists were candid
when it came to this just as the empirical free-for-all was just
beginning in 1908,obviously there is a sense of unease in Rouse Ball's
summation as he himself doesn't know -
"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form
appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown,
and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in
themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the
controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by
a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving them.
He therefore cast the whole reasoning into a geometrical shape which,
if somewhat longer, can at any rate be made intelligible to all
mathematical students. So closely did he follow the lines of Greek
geometry that he constantly used graphical methods, and represented
forces, velocities, and other magnitudes in the Euclidean way by
straight lines (ex. gr. book I, lemma 10), and not by a certain number
of units. The latter and modern method had been introduced by Wallis,
and must have been familiar to Newton. The effect of his confining
himself rigorously to classical geometry is that the Principia is
written in a lnaguage which is archaic, even if not unfamiliar."
W.W.Rouse Ball 1908
The real story is that Newton stuck so closely to the equatorial
coordinate system which is effectively a misuse of the calendar system
in using a rotating celestial sphere by way of right ascension that
even today few could work through his attempt to run a heliocentric
conversion through this framework which is essentially
homocentric.When readers here see the full extent of this
'transformation',they hardly know what it is they are getting into and
no wonder they made a song and dance with these absolute/relative
definitions without actually knowing what they represent in Newton's
imagination -
"PHÆNOMENON IV.
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun." Newton
Rather than ask where he is getting his ideas from and where he is
going with them would be irrelevant to his followers as they don't
know themselves,what they do see is that the issue looks so foreboding
that nobody would dare get stuck untangling the details and certainly
not anyone here.
Ultimately it is Newton's agenda that is generating wayward ideologies
such as the analemma as his technical non sequitur on what retrogrades
are and what the resolution actually is sets the stage for a wandering
analemma Sun and other such junk -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct " Newton
There is your absolute/relative space and motion right there,a
technical non sequitur which is easily obliterated by contemporary
imaging showing it to be a false perspective of retrogrades as only
the view from an orbitally moving Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn
is acceptable -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
The crowd who want a wandering analemma Sun also want an idiosyncratic
resolution to the 'wandering' motions of the planets but their day is
finished.
there was a revolution at the beginning of the 20th century as the
clockwork solar system based on right ascension really started to bite
as more and more information looked for new avenues to open up.In
effect,relativity was a capitulation as it offered mathematicians
complete freedom from physical considerations as opposed to the
tenuous links that Newton's absolute/relative time,space and motion
had with the parent astronomical insights that stretch before all
readers,even today.
I discovered that relativists have the measure of their
opponents,their real fear is going back into Newton and clarifying
what he was actually doing and the original empiricists were candid
when it came to this just as the empirical free-for-all was just
beginning in 1908,obviously there is a sense of unease in Rouse Ball's
summation as he himself doesn't know -
"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form
appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown,
and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in
themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the
controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by
a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving them.
He therefore cast the whole reasoning into a geometrical shape which,
if somewhat longer, can at any rate be made intelligible to all
mathematical students. So closely did he follow the lines of Greek
geometry that he constantly used graphical methods, and represented
forces, velocities, and other magnitudes in the Euclidean way by
straight lines (ex. gr. book I, lemma 10), and not by a certain number
of units. The latter and modern method had been introduced by Wallis,
and must have been familiar to Newton. The effect of his confining
himself rigorously to classical geometry is that the Principia is
written in a lnaguage which is archaic, even if not unfamiliar."
W.W.Rouse Ball 1908
The real story is that Newton stuck so closely to the equatorial
coordinate system which is effectively a misuse of the calendar system
in using a rotating celestial sphere by way of right ascension that
even today few could work through his attempt to run a heliocentric
conversion through this framework which is essentially
homocentric.When readers here see the full extent of this
'transformation',they hardly know what it is they are getting into and
no wonder they made a song and dance with these absolute/relative
definitions without actually knowing what they represent in Newton's
imagination -
"PHÆNOMENON IV.
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun." Newton
Rather than ask where he is getting his ideas from and where he is
going with them would be irrelevant to his followers as they don't
know themselves,what they do see is that the issue looks so foreboding
that nobody would dare get stuck untangling the details and certainly
not anyone here.
Ultimately it is Newton's agenda that is generating wayward ideologies
such as the analemma as his technical non sequitur on what retrogrades
are and what the resolution actually is sets the stage for a wandering
analemma Sun and other such junk -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct " Newton
There is your absolute/relative space and motion right there,a
technical non sequitur which is easily obliterated by contemporary
imaging showing it to be a false perspective of retrogrades as only
the view from an orbitally moving Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn
is acceptable -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
The crowd who want a wandering analemma Sun also want an idiosyncratic
resolution to the 'wandering' motions of the planets but their day is
finished.
Ben
Jan 31, 2012, 4:31:26 PM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 11:36 am, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012> wrote:
> "Ben" <b.therr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I like that too except it's a mathematical object that I'm not
very familiar with. What is the significance of *delta* in the
notation.
Also is it really a Lissajous figure if it's asymmetrical? Or does
the latitude of the observer skew the Lissajous into an
*affine transformation*?
Ben
> "Ben" <b.therr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
very familiar with. What is the significance of *delta* in the
notation.
Also is it really a Lissajous figure if it's asymmetrical? Or does
the latitude of the observer skew the Lissajous into an
*affine transformation*?
Ben
Androcles
Jan 31, 2012, 9:35:45 PM1/31/12
to
news:fb7d434a-534f-4311...@v6g2000pba.googlegroups.com...
======================================
Does the analemma lie on a plane? Pictures and diagrams
are merely an aid to understanding, sculpture is better.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Analemmae/Analemmae.htm
On a Mercator projection the path of the ISS is a sinusoid.
http://home.tiscali.nl/mysteryship/spaceshuttle/iss_assembly_mission.jpg
In reality it is a great circle with the Earth turning beneath it.
http://www.challenger.org/programs/iss/images/wtoearth2.jpg
Rubik designed his cube to encourage people to think in 3D.
The planar model is not the reality. The Lissajous is a planar model.
The hourglass is the reality, the figure 8 is the projection of the
hourglass
onto a plane.
Does the analemma lie on a plane? Pictures and diagrams
are merely an aid to understanding, sculpture is better.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Analemmae/Analemmae.htm
On a Mercator projection the path of the ISS is a sinusoid.
http://home.tiscali.nl/mysteryship/spaceshuttle/iss_assembly_mission.jpg
In reality it is a great circle with the Earth turning beneath it.
http://www.challenger.org/programs/iss/images/wtoearth2.jpg
Rubik designed his cube to encourage people to think in 3D.
The planar model is not the reality. The Lissajous is a planar model.
The hourglass is the reality, the figure 8 is the projection of the
hourglass
onto a plane.
Ben
Feb 1, 2012, 12:13:28 AM2/1/12
to
"Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes
vident." ( Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants see more
than the giants themselves.) Now I know where Hawking got
the title of his recent anthology *On the Shoulders of Giants*.
> On a Mercator projection the path of the ISS is a sinusoid.
> http://home.tiscali.nl/mysteryship/spaceshuttle/iss_assembly_mission.jpg
> In reality it is a great circle with the Earth turning beneath it.
> http://www.challenger.org/programs/iss/images/wtoearth2.jpg
> Rubik designed his cube to encourage people to think in 3D.
> The planar model is not the reality. The Lissajous is a planar model.
> The hourglass is the reality, the figure 8 is the projection of the
> hourglass
> onto a plane.
hourglass itself. Even though it's a graphic artifact it seems to
be a real graphic artifact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curves
Ben
Androcles
Feb 1, 2012, 6:34:53 AM2/1/12
to
news:fa9b75de-2a63-4fc3...@rk3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
=======================================
Oh well, if you are going to resort to wackypedia then the
opinion of the majority is Mary was a virgin and the Easter
Bunny lays chocolate eggs.
Oh well, if you are going to resort to wackypedia then the
opinion of the majority is Mary was a virgin and the Easter
Bunny lays chocolate eggs.
Ben
Feb 1, 2012, 12:36:29 PM2/1/12
to
>
> Ben
> =======================================
> Oh well, if you are going to resort to wackypedia then the
> opinion of the majority is Mary was a virgin and the Easter
> Bunny lays chocolate eggs.
Mary was a virgin 'til she got porked. I don't know about the
> Ben
> =======================================
> Oh well, if you are going to resort to wackypedia then the
> opinion of the majority is Mary was a virgin and the Easter
> Bunny lays chocolate eggs.
Easter eggs.
Androcles
Feb 1, 2012, 2:18:27 PM2/1/12
to
news:a6c73a3b-662a-4698...@rk3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
The quote actually dates from the 1200's. Newton used it in the 1600's
when Hooke called him a dwarf.
> > On a Mercator projection the path of the ISS is a sinusoid.
> >http://home.tiscali.nl/mysteryship/spaceshuttle/iss_assembly_mission.jpg
> > In reality it is a great circle with the Earth turning beneath it.
> >http://www.challenger.org/programs/iss/images/wtoearth2.jpg
> > Rubik designed his cube to encourage people to think in 3D.
> > The planar model is not the reality. The Lissajous is a planar model.
> > The hourglass is the reality, the figure 8 is the projection of the
> > hourglass
> > onto a plane.
>
> I am of the opinion that the planar model is just as real as the
> hourglass itself. Even though it's a graphic artifact it seems to
> be a real graphic artifact.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curves
>
> Ben
> =======================================
> Oh well, if you are going to resort to wackypedia then the
> opinion of the majority is Mary was a virgin and the Easter
> Bunny lays chocolate eggs.
Mary was a virgin 'til she got porked. I don't know about the
Easter eggs.
===========================================
The first explanation given is always the right one. Where else
could chocolate eggs come from if not laid by the Easter Bunny?
Wackypedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
lists:
1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof
Not included:
11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "I'm smarter than you, so there!" (proof by bluster).
17 Proof by "read a text book" (proof by bluster revision 2).
and the ultimate counter proof:
18 Proof by "You're'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).
Proof 18 is my favorite, I use it often. It is very effective when used
against proofs 11-17. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me
defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-17 and I have to bite
the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do
at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind).
when Hooke called him a dwarf.
> > On a Mercator projection the path of the ISS is a sinusoid.
> >http://home.tiscali.nl/mysteryship/spaceshuttle/iss_assembly_mission.jpg
> > In reality it is a great circle with the Earth turning beneath it.
> >http://www.challenger.org/programs/iss/images/wtoearth2.jpg
> > Rubik designed his cube to encourage people to think in 3D.
> > The planar model is not the reality. The Lissajous is a planar model.
> > The hourglass is the reality, the figure 8 is the projection of the
> > hourglass
> > onto a plane.
>
> I am of the opinion that the planar model is just as real as the
> hourglass itself. Even though it's a graphic artifact it seems to
> be a real graphic artifact.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curves
>
> Ben
> =======================================
> Oh well, if you are going to resort to wackypedia then the
> opinion of the majority is Mary was a virgin and the Easter
> Bunny lays chocolate eggs.
Mary was a virgin 'til she got porked. I don't know about the
Easter eggs.
The first explanation given is always the right one. Where else
could chocolate eggs come from if not laid by the Easter Bunny?
Wackypedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
lists:
1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof
Not included:
11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "I'm smarter than you, so there!" (proof by bluster).
17 Proof by "read a text book" (proof by bluster revision 2).
and the ultimate counter proof:
18 Proof by "You're'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).
Proof 18 is my favorite, I use it often. It is very effective when used
against proofs 11-17. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me
defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-17 and I have to bite
the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do
at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind).
oriel36
Feb 2, 2012, 12:19:53 PM2/2/12
to
One of the nicer perspectives of the orbital behavior of a planet, and
by association our planet, must be the orbital turning of Uranus to
the central Sun and probably easier to grasp the orbital turning of
the Earth with the polar coordinates acting like a beacon for the
Earth's orbital behavior.
Switching from the graphic to the sequence of images,as it with the
previous sequence of Uranus clearly shows how a planet turns to the
central Sun arising from its orbital motin and separate to the daily
rotation of a planet -
http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0909/6yearsofsaturn_friedman900.jpg
We owe it to ourselves to expand on our imaging capabilities and
provide a more reasoned explanation for the seasons and the natural
noon cycle by introduction a very simple quasi-rotation to the
central Sun arising from the orbital motion of a planet.
by association our planet, must be the orbital turning of Uranus to
the central Sun and probably easier to grasp the orbital turning of
the Earth with the polar coordinates acting like a beacon for the
Earth's orbital behavior.
Switching from the graphic to the sequence of images,as it with the
previous sequence of Uranus clearly shows how a planet turns to the
central Sun arising from its orbital motin and separate to the daily
rotation of a planet -
http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0909/6yearsofsaturn_friedman900.jpg
We owe it to ourselves to expand on our imaging capabilities and
provide a more reasoned explanation for the seasons and the natural
noon cycle by introduction a very simple quasi-rotation to the
central Sun arising from the orbital motion of a planet.
oriel36
Feb 2, 2012, 12:21:45 PM2/2/12
to
One of the nicer perspectives of the orbital behavior of a planet, and
by association our planet, must be the orbital turning of Saturn to
oriel36
Feb 2, 2012, 1:10:58 PM2/2/12
to
central Sun act as a expression of the same change as the Earth moves
along its orbital circumference hence the need to get rid of 'axial
precession' as it is currently understood and replace it with the
introduction of an orbital component -
http://www.simpletoremember.com/images/uploads/erthaxs.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0909/6yearsofsaturn_friedman900.jpg
This is as large a modification as readers are likely to see and there
is not the slightest trace of vanity in this.Far from the debacle of
global warming and the alarmism it created,here is astronomy and
climate at its purest and simply fun to assemble with some effort and
a new way to mesh the explanation for the seasons with variations in
the natural noon cycle.
Ben
Feb 2, 2012, 2:52:51 PM2/2/12
to
0 new messages