 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Amateur Astronomy / July 2009Climate change
How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it does not cause the seasons ? . The idea of 'no tilt/no seasons' is derived by a hypothesis from Copernicus himself but the modified view replaces that view with practical observations based on planetary comparisons where the cause of the seasons is actually the orbital motion of the Earth and the isolation of that motion and its characteristics. A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the specific way a planet orbits the Sun.The role of 'tilt' is therefore restricted to seasonal characteristics and completely at variance with the view of 'axial tilt to the orbital plane' or some such variation of that theme - http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php I am not throwing good information after the 'climate change' mob whio live and operate of a hyper fuss basis while not having any sense of what causes basic temperature fluctuations of the day/night cycle due to daily rotation or the seasonal cycle via orbital dynamics. Is there any sane person,who can simply work out the reasons which distinguish Earth from Uranus in terms of 'tilt' comparisons thereby determining what role rotational inclination actually serves?. http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg For all the fuss over 'global warming' and whether temperature spikes are due to human or natural influences,until scientists explain the basic seasonal temperature fluctuations correctly via astronomy and planetary dynamics,they are being absolutely ridiculous in attempting to correlate carbon dioxide with minor variations in temperature. How intelligent do you need to be to understand what 'tilt' actually does ?. > How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine > what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it > does not cause the seasons ? . It's so hard that it's wrong. The tilt of the earth's rotational axis with respect to the ecliptic is indeed the primary cause of seasonal change. Climate change is something else and I refer you to links at this URL I put together. http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Global_Climate_Change_Resources.html > Climate change is something else and I refer you to links at this > URL I put together. > http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Global_Climate_Change_Resources.html Climate change indeed ! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset I actually didn't read that until after my last response in this thread and good to see the 21st century version of 'indulgences' mentioned and so they should be. Astronomers should be the first to weigh in with the arguments which put the brakes on what is turning into a scam,not because they ruined the normal concerns for pollution that have always existed, but that they managed to exclude the astronomical inputs which dictate global climate conditions.Is there any person here with a few brain cells who realises that any attempt to consider global temperature variations in future by any other means bar carbon dioxide will be looked on as 'bad for business' . Push through these social policies under the umbrella of 'climate change' (rather than pollution control that it is) and you can forget astronomy,planetary dynamics or anything else.With no astronomical authority in existence,the monster that is 'climate change' by treating carbon dioxide as the global temperature dial ,nothing is going to happen to turn this situation around even though it is,quite surprisingly,not all that difficult.If scientists can't explain the seasons properly then they put global climate on hold until they get things straight - call it a triumph of science if you wish but it is pretty much the most effective tool available . Many here should take the words of Copernicus to heart when dealing with the reckless conclusion based on global climate.We barely understand most processes and the astronomical- terrestrial connection and it is time for people to act accordingly - ". although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543 Copernicus > Astronomers should be the first to weigh in with the arguments which > put the brakes on what is turning into a scam,not because they ruined [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in future by any other means bar carbon dioxide will be looked on as > 'bad for business' . Do you think anything about the Earth's orbit is changing recently? Even if your idea about how the Earth's orbit works to cause the seasons is different from ours, don't you agree that the Earth's orbit isn't changing? Anyways: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090630132005.htm shows why we dare not let things get any warmer, as they would swiftly get out of hand. John Savard > A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or > polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but > of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the > specific way a planet orbits the Sun. You're partly right. If the Earth didn't orbit the Sun, but always stayed at one part of its orbit, there would be no seasons; 'tilt' is a static condition, and seasons are about change over the course of a year. But if the Earth's axis coincided with the Ecliptic pole, the conditions would be so "Equatorial" that the seasons would not vary at all. Given a circular orbit, though, I have to admit. There could still be aphelion season and perhelion season giving the same temperature changes in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. John Savard The Four Seasons was a great band.! > A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or > polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but > of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the > specific way a planet orbits the Sun. You're partly right. If the Earth didn't orbit the Sun, but always stayed at one part of its orbit, there would be no seasons; 'tilt' is a static condition, and seasons are about change over the course of a year. But if the Earth's axis coincided with the Ecliptic pole, the conditions would be so "Equatorial" that the seasons would not vary at all. Given a circular orbit, though, I have to admit. There could still be aphelion season and perhelion season giving the same temperature changes in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. John Savard >>A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or >>polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > John Savard From what I've read of Gerald's posts on the subject of 'tilt', he has never given any indication that he understands or even wants to know why the earth's rotational axis remains fixed in space relative to the distant stars, particularly Polaris. Apparently he has never had a basic physics course which would provide the answer to that question or perhaps in his mind it's not an issue that needs explaining. He would most likely say that it's just the way it is. In any case, he thinks he's the only one who knows that the seasons are caused by the earth's fixed axis of rotation (tilt) in relation to it's orbital path around the sun which he calls the 'orbital specific'. This produces the changes in the path of the sun in the sky during the course of a year, resulting in the variable length of the days, which ultimately produce the changes in the weather that we call seasons. Apparently this all started for him when he saw the time lapse pictures of Uranus. As if the world was waiting for that evidence before we could truly understand the causes of the seasons. Sadly he doesn't realize that those pictures of Uranus only serve to confirm what has been known for centuries about the orbital mechanics of the earth and the solar system in general. I guess what makes this frustrating for some of us here is the notion that we could set him straight if we had the opportunity to sit down with him, pen and paper in hand, and walk him through the process that leads to really understanding the subject. That would be a far greater epiphany for him than when he first saw those pictures of Uranus. > How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine > what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > How intelligent do you need to be to understand what 'tilt' actually > does ?. That is presuming you believe the climate change and C02 theories and don't realize the people behind it are nothing but a cabal of World government socialists and envirocrackpots working on the largest plan yet to destroy the West. > That is presuming you believe the climate change and C02 theories and > don't realize the people behind it are nothing but a cabal of World > government socialists and envirocrackpots working on the largest plan > yet to destroy the West. You are much too modest, Rich. You dont need the help of anyone else. The right wing have brought the entire world to its knees. (yet again) All the the envirowotsits can do for you now is to patch the gaping holes until your lot rig the next elections. ;-) ".....The right wing have brought the entire world to its knees. (yet again)......" It's the far left responsible for this, and a whole heap of other crap such as: moral decay, religious degradation, continued economic collapse, bankruptcy, etc. Of course, you could be a dreamer and believe Obamaeze will fix everything. > It's the far left responsible for this, and a whole heap of other crap such > as: moral decay, religious degradation, continued economic collapse, > bankruptcy, etc. Of course, you could be a dreamer and believe Obamaeze > will fix everything. No words of mine will convince you of your terrifyingly skewed vision of the world. Fortunately I don't have to make the attempt. Read the reports of your own religio-fascist think tanks. The USS Corruption is about to sink with major loss of life. The oil has run out and the steering is deliberately jammed at full right turn. Obama has been handed the sputtering torch too late to relight the boilers and the handle is already red hot. A system propped up on slavery and stolen natural wealth, from the rest of the world, is approaching the rapidly calving icebergs at full tilt. A tragedy for vast numbers of ordinary people who are chained below decks with no lifebelts. Bush deregulated the controls on passenger numbers, crew training, safety, health and security. All just to increase profit margins for those who were already tax evading multi-billionaires. Just before the end the wealthy will steal the lifeboats, will be quickly picked up and flown to safety offshore. America will slide beneath the waves into the dark depths of anarchy, drug gangs, tyrants and local warlords. No change there then. > A system propped up on slavery and stolen > natural wealth, from the rest of the world, is approaching the rapidly > calving icebergs at full tilt. What is your opinion about places like Canada and Australia, or places like Denmark, Italy, or France? After all, these countries are wealthy like the United States, not poor like China or India. John Savard > > How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine > > what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > government socialists and envirocrackpots working on the largest plan > yet to destroy the West. Don't need to consider 'climate change' as it is understood in the media , that has the same ring to it as Newton's attempt to correlate terrestrial ballistics directly to planetary motion by throwing the kitchen sink at it in order to make observations fit the conclusions.As he used the predictive Ra/Dec conventions, amounting to inverted references for daily and orbital motions,it now amounts to showing what a waste of time and effort that turned out to be.If people want to be fleeced individually or nationally to the tune of billions by believing carbon dioxide has some magic property to control global temperature then that is none of my concern,it looks like the attempt to extract cash the same way denominational Christianity once used indulgences once to expunge guilt except this 21st century version is more destructive. I can point out that by far the greatest temperature fluctuations are the seasonal variations between a week in January/February and a week in July/August representing the specifics of planetary dynamics.These temperature variations are cyclical meaning that they are supposed to be completely understood along with the variations which occur during the day/night cycle before moving on to long term variations or adding inputs which distinguish astronomical,terrestrial and human influences.Ask the 'climate change' scientists what causes a rise in temperature from January to July and they don't know or attribute 'axial tilt' as the cause whereas the major modification and a nuanced approach is surely understood by any reasonable person here - that rotational inclination dictates whether a planet has Equatorial or polar characteristics in its seasonal cycle with orbital motion and the specifics of that motion causing the temperature fluctuation when allied with daily rotation. I don't think it is possible for anyone to return to 'axial tilt' as the dynamic for seasonal changes once they see the advantages of its actual role.In the interest of stability and to prevent the atrocious correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide/pollution from dominating all terrestrial and astronomical investigations,the modification based on planetary dynamics and characteristics puts the brakes on if only to demonstrate that the exclusion of astronomy has terrible consequences.The problem is,as anyone familiar with the 'Pluto' disaster knows,is that there is no astronomical authority worth speaking of. Tell me,before everyone jumps over the carbon dioxide/global warming precipice,would you go along with the following explanation for the seasons ?,if you do then you belong with the opponents and proponents of that reckless conclusion - http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php <Usual rubbish deleted> The depth of your problem is demonstated by your inability to resist the temptation to post minor variations of the same old material for more than a few hours. Please, please, seek professional help! > How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine > what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the seasons is actually the orbital motion of the Earth and the > isolation of that motion and its characteristics. If the earth had no rotational inclination (tilt), it's orbital motion around the sun would *not* produce variable seasons. That's why a tilt (to the orbital plane) is a necessary condition for seasons to occur. Copernicus was right, no tilt-no seasons. > A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or > polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the view of 'axial tilt to the orbital plane' or some such variation > of that theme - Guess what, practically everyone here knows that it requires a combination of a fixed (in space) axial tilt (to the orbital plane) *combined* with the orbital motion of the earth during the course of a year, to produce the seasons. You must be the last one here to discover this. > http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > distinguish Earth from Uranus in terms of 'tilt' comparisons thereby > determining what role rotational inclination actually serves?. I guess everyone here must be sane, because we all know how to make an accurate comparison between the earth's rotational axis and that of Uranus. If Uranus were a terrestrial planet, it would have very extreme seasons during an orbit of the sun because of the extreme tilt to it's orbital plane. There really is a connection between tilt (rotational inclination) and a planet's orbital plane. After all, the tilt angle has to be measured in reference to something. The orbital plane is that reference. > http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How intelligent do you need to be to understand what 'tilt' actually > does ?. Apparently at least as intelligent as you, but there are many here who are much more so. That's why they understand much more than you do about orbital mechanics. Here's that nagging question again. Why does the earth's rotational axis remain fixed in space towards the star Polaris? Why not some other direction or star? Have you made any attempt to look it up? > > How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine > > what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (to the orbital plane) is a necessary condition for seasons to occur. > Copernicus was right, no tilt-no seasons. Oh brother,I could spend years answering every objection which seems prepared to ignore the simple additional specific attached to orbital motion which explains seasonal variations in daylight/darkness,why the natural noon cycles vary,the seasonal disappearance of certain constellations and all the other effects arising from the modification.If you insist on the hypothesis of Copernicus of no tilt/ no seasons then you must be prepared to accept the full description based on variable axial/Equatorial orientation to the central Sun - "... the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of days and nights would be observed. On the contrary, it would always be either the longest or shortest day or the day of equal daylight and darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever the character of the season, it would remain identical and unchanged." Copernicus The modified explanation alters the conception of 'no seasons' to Equatorial conditions hence the degree of rotational inclination above 45 degrees indicate a planetary characteristic of Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or below 45 degrees you have Uranus with Polar characteristics. So,the rotation of the Earth generates the day and night cycle and the variations in the length of daylight/darkness is due to the orbital motion which represents the seasonal cycle hence the seasons are not caused by a daily rotational component such as 'tilt'.It is not the difficult in this era when it is easy to make planetary comparisons. > > A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or > > polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > year, to produce the seasons. You must be the last one here to discover > this. The seasons will occur regardless of what the rotational inclination is,if they look out from Mars they will see the same seasonal disappearance of constellations as Earth but this is just one additional detail among many when people decide to escape the Ra/Dec conventions and grow up.Operating on a level where the proper references for daily and orbital motions are restored back to where they were before Flamsteed is crucial to understanding planetary dynamics and that hasn't happened yet. > >http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > remain fixed in space towards the star Polaris? Why not some other > direction or star? Have you made any attempt to look it up? I have actually very little interest in 'climate change' other than the idea of carbon dioxide as a temperature dial is quite a reckless conclusion by excluding everything else and especially astronomical inputs.Because 'astronomy' as most here know it is a middle class magnification indulgence attached to late 17th century astrology,few would understand the powerful arguments that put the brakes on this bandwagon which excludes any other possibilities for temperature spikes other than carbon dioxide or human pollution. I can't answer every objection and explaining this multiple times in order to get people familiar with the modified explanation for the seasons and the natural noon has gone on long enough.Instead of 'axial tilt' as a dynamic,'tilt' takes on a much more effective role in shaping equatorial or polar characteristics while the dynamic is strictly an orbital component. I am not in competition with NOAA or any other climate organisation but they are obligated to explain the known seasonal temperature fluctuations properly,including the day/ night fluctuations before deciding that they can account for global temperature fluctuations from other causes. Of course,after 1905 when anyone can make up whatever story they like ,for instance,Copernicus had specific reasons for using variable axial/Equatorial tilt as the reason for the seasons while you just simply ignore it ,the valuable addition of a component to orbital motion is lost in the hubris to retain 'axial tilt'.For my part,I am relaxed at the level I enjoy these things and that is it. >> If the earth had no rotational inclination (tilt), it's orbital motion >> around the sun would *not* produce variable seasons. That's why a tilt [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The seasons will occur regardless of what the rotational inclination >is Quit being silly. Seasonal changes in climate would no longer exist. The eccentricity in Earth's orbit only changes the solar constant by +/- 0.11%, or +/- 1½ Watts per square meter. That's nowhere near enough to cause plainly obvious oscillatory changes in climate. The ecliptic and the equatorial plane would be as one. The Zodiac would be a skinny band only 14° thick, 7° above and below the ecliptic. There would be no solstices and every day would be an equinox. The analemma would be reduced to a zero height East-West oscillation as the Earth alternately lagged behind and advanced ahead of its ideal circular orbit position. The Sun would still move eastward against the celestial sphere; however, with no obvious difference in local climate across the seasons, there would be little reason for society at large to differentiate the four quadrants of Earth's orbit. Thus, the seasons in their most common, most useful sense would no longer exist. -- Dave skyguy wrote: >> If the earth had no rotational inclination (tilt), it's orbital motion around the sun would *not* produce variable seasons. That's why a tilt (to the orbital plane) is a necessary condition for seasons to occur. Copernicus was right, no tilt-no seasons. >>The seasons will occur regardless of what the rotational inclination >>is Well that clinches it. Gerald doesn't have a clue about orbital mechanics and the related effects such as seasonal changes in weather and climate zones. I'm afraid your detailed explanation (below) fell on deaf ears. He must live in a world where the definition of the word 'tilt' is different from our universe. > Quit being silly. Seasonal changes in climate would no longer exist. > The eccentricity in Earth's orbit only changes the solar constant by [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > Dave > skyguy wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > -- > > Dave "This is a transformative moment," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on the House floor. "This is a moment to create jobs in America. This is a moment to take on at long last a defining challenge of our time - global warming." http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/06260 9dnmetenergyclimate.caa0b38.html In direct opposition to the 'science' behind global warming which is a reckless conclusion which excludes everything with the exception of carbon dioxide in determining global temperature there is the time lapse footage from the Hubble telescope and other sets of images which makes a mockery of computer modelling - http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg The optical illusion that the rings are turning while maintaining a constant orientation in space is due to the specific way a planet orbits the Sun therefore the dynamic behind astronomical seasonal changes is found in the orbital motion of the Earth and not its 'axial tilt'. I do not mind if people are willing to empty their pockets to 'combat' and 'fight' global warming by imagining there is some idealised climate to which humans should influence the planet but the 'fight' is a phony one invented in people's head's and using computer modelling,the same process that almost destroyed the stability of the financial system *. I do mind that once this Co2/Global warming correlation becomes a money generating fixed feature ,it will be impossible to work with all the other inputs such as solar and planetary dynamics as we become the first race in history to view the planet through the eyes of pollution.Climate is being processed through people who don't understand the dynamics behind global climate and it is seen in all explanations for the 'seasons' based on a view of Copernicus that now needs to be completely modified for 21st century concerns. This is important and the usenet is the only genuine means at the moment to demonstrate just how limited knowledge of global climate actually is insofar as the dynamics behind the huge seasonal temperature fluctuations is not understood properly in terms of global climate or hemispherical weather patterns .The wider population does not know just how weak the arguments for CO2/Global warming correlation actually are but they are certainly going to pay for this 'science' and it can all be returned to an open debate by focusing on what causes the seasons. Now,I have said enough to you on this matter and stick with 'axial tilt to the orbital plane ' if that is all you can manage,the actual dynamic is in the specifics of orbital motion. * " The market was being run by mathematicians that didn’t know financial markets. And you keep hearing, you know, god, that event should only happen once every hundred years, according to my model. But those every hundred years events are coming along every two or three years, which should raise some questions." Paul Vocker <Endlessly repeated material deleted> You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor variations of the same material again and again and again. I simply don't believe that there are not more constructive uses you could make of your time. If you **really** believed what you keep posting you would arranged for it to be published in a far more appropriate place. Why are you so against peer reviewed publication? On 27 June, 10:01, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)" <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > <Endlessly repeated material deleted> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why are you so against peer reviewed publication? An era that can't even manage to grasp the reasoning behind the fact that the Earth turns once in 24 hours doesn't recognise astronomy as a discipline anymore,not even modern imaging is enough to drag people out of the peer review empirical stupor and into the dynamics of astronomical thinking and its sparkling and vibrant methods and insights. I can tell you all about the insanity of the commonplace mind,where people willingly empty their pockets for the phony peer reviewed 'fight' against climate change without even the slightest objection but that is due to the lack of astronomers and the presence of dull astrologers. A civilisation that vandalises its astronomical heritage, and this was done in the late 17th century through your much vaunted peer review process,deserves what it gets which is why we are now,in the 21st century, in the gutter looking at pollution whereas some people who make the effort are destined for another fate - "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde On 27 June, 10:01, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)" <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > <Endlessly repeated material deleted> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why are you so against peer reviewed publication? I have the luxury of doing peer review retroactively and my findings are as straightforward as they are important.Nobody checked to see if Flamsteed's assertion for constant daily rotation using the return of a star stands up to scrutiny based on inverting the references for daily and orbital motions,considering Newton built empiricism and his terrestrial ballistics/planetary motion on that framework and conclusion,the validity of the latter depends on the former. Peer review to your heart's content,with an error of the magnitude existing at the core of planetary dynamics,specifically a false conception rooted to the value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds at variance with planetary shape and rotational characteristics contained in the reasoning behind the 24 hour/360 degree value,anything relating to planetary dynamics and cosmological structure is in a catastrophic state whether men choose to affirm it or not. The lessons of Piltdown man apply here to a large degree to the sidereal time vs solar time/analemma hoax - "The [Piiltdown] hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further reconsideration." http://www.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html How a race ended up not knowing how long it takes the planet to turn once is a remarkable story in itself outside the technical issues which make it 24 hours exactly.The failure to pick up on the error or rather,to model planetary motion using timekeeping averages has its parallels today as the same guys go about modelling everything with computers. Flamsteed is allowed his mistake hence if all share the consequences of it then so do we share in expunging it or at least those who are capable of realising the importance of the matter. It is no mean thing,even in this information saturated era,to express the wrong value for the rotation of the Earth in its daily cycle for it reflects not just the value itself but the reasoning that arrives at it.I have done my part on the usenet where the messages can be washed away within a few days leaving no trace of my participation thereby giving people plenty of freedom to act responsibly for a change and do their best to raise the standard of astronomy to where it once existed. As for you and variable stars,I was working on these things back in 1990 in terms of volume/density ratios and luminosity variations,even have a copyright (the only one I have) on the geometry of stellar processes in terms of enegy efficiency and a a multi-stage stellar evolutionary process based on two large external rings and a smaller intersecting smaller ring.When you work on these things alone you get the private satisfaction of seeing the images 4 years later when Sn1897a went Supernova - http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/pic/sn1987a.gif Natural and celestial processes are the most efficient in terms of energy extraction and creation hence my contribution to an alternative energy scaffolding is to point to the geometry of stellar evolutionary processes contained in the images above,it has been a private work for 20 years and that is the way it will stay. You collect variable stars like observational trinkets and good for you if that is all you can manage but some others when given a piece of information can work with it and see posibilities and connections the way astronomers once did.The cruelty of being stuck with late 17th century astrological conceptions you may never know but even when proposed as an observational Ra/Dec convenience,people still want this timekeeping average to reflect planetary dynamics and celestial structure. If you really wish to make a difference then post your own original material rather than being a nuisance. > If you really wish to make a difference then post your own original > material rather than being a nuisance. Unfortunately, few of us here can be quite as original as you. John Savard On Jun 27, 5:01 am, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)" <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > <Endlessly repeated material deleted> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why are you so against peer reviewed publication? As far as Kelleher is concerned, he has no peers. On Jun 27, 12:21 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Jun 27, 5:01 am, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)" > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > As far as Kelleher is concerned, he has no peers. What I see are guys who are firmly rooted in an error in the late 17th century as a launchpad for Newton's attempt to bypass intuitive or contemplative astronomy,as Kepler called it - "To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets and the record of their motions is especially the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to discover their true and genuine path is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler Newton goes straight from Ra/Dec conventions into modelling by distorting the resolution for retrogrades which comprise of the bulk of astronomical methods and insights based on direct planetary comparisons - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton Talk about loading the dice !,the truth is that a person today,with the aid of time lapse footage can make sense of apparent motions such as retrogrades,the seasons,the day and night cycle or any other astronomical observation via planetary dynamics so Newton is talking rubbish,as usual. It is not that I have no peers,I just haven't found people who actually like astronomy or much else for that matter,the people who are into magnification appear to have no astronomical sense of context and especially planetary dynamics and have an aversion for intuitive intelligence, matters of faith,history and just good old fashioned common sense.I truly believe that given a chance or a choice,people would much prefer to act with the best interests of humanity in mind but that is not happening here,this reliance on the 'scientific method' mantra is choking off genuine avenues of discussion other than overheated opinions of the speculative kind. Again,if I ever find somebody who actually is excited with what contemporary tools and imaging can achieve I will then consider an authority in existence but nothing indicates this even with important matters on the table. > <Endlessly repeated material deleted> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why are you so against peer reviewed publication? Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong and only abuse him. You repeat the same thing to him again and again and again and tell people to ignore him because all he does is repeat. I think you are jealous. People completely ignore your posts but they talk to him. I have seen you say all he does is cut and paste the same old material. Well I looked at some of your "peer review" papers. Most of them are just in hobbyist amateur web journals and not in peer reviewed scientific journals at all. They are difficult to read sometimes with the text being very randomly jumbled up. Then I followed some of your paper references to earlier papers which are also in the hobbyist magazines and found out why. You mostly cut and paste from the text and references of other articles by other people and do nothing new yourself to explain the theories or explain what you are doing. Sometimes whole sentences can be seen to be cut and paste. Gerald at least uses cut and paste to mix up his own original idea. Even if that idea is unscientific and a bit strange at least it is his. All you do is attack him and abuse him and not his ideas. Your own peer review work is just in little amateur journals on the web and cut and paste of earlier work done by others. I think you are just jealous of him. You repeat time and again that people should ignore him but they already do ignore you. Lots of people talk to him but very few talk to you. If you abuse Gerald some one might talk to you so you repeat the abuse time and again with the same message. Well, Gerald, you keep doing it if you want at least it is your own. Not like Mad Man Martin The Troll King who uses cut and paste of web material and other hobbyist work and when that is ignored runs to insult you and the Einstein hating dude and the Mars fossil dude hoping someone will talk to him by joining in on the insults. If Martin does not want to listen to you there are filters and mail blockers. He has to be hateful to you and reply every time you start a thread only because he is jealous of people talking to you instead of to him. Ignore him. If you did not reply to him he would have nearly no one talking to him. Tell him to rotate. Best Regards George > <Endlessly repeated material deleted> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why are you so against peer reviewed publication? Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong and only abuse him. You repeat the same thing to him again and again and again and tell people to ignore him because all he does is repeat. I think you are jealous. People completely ignore your posts but they talk to him. I have seen you say all he does is cut and paste the same old material. Well I looked at some of your "peer review" papers. Most of them are just in hobbyist amateur web journals and not in peer reviewed scientific journals at all. They are difficult to read sometimes with the text being very randomly jumbled up. Then I followed some of your paper references to earlier papers which are also in the hobbyist magazines and found out why. You mostly cut and paste from the text and references of other articles by other people and do nothing new yourself to explain the theories or explain what you are doing. Sometimes whole sentences can be seen to be cut and paste. Gerald at least uses cut and paste to mix up his own original idea. Even if that idea is unscientific and a bit strange at least it is his. All you do is attack him and abuse him and not his ideas. Your own peer review work is just in little amateur journals on the web and cut and paste of earlier work done by others. I think you are just jealous of him. You repeat time and again that people should ignore him but they already do ignore you. Lots of people talk to him but very few talk to you. If you abuse Gerald some one might talk to you so you repeat the abuse time and again with the same message. Well, Gerald, you keep doing it if you want at least it is your own. Not like Mad Man Martin The Troll King who uses cut and paste of web material and other hobbyist work and when that is ignored runs to insult you and the Einstein hating dude and the Mars fossil dude hoping someone will talk to him by joining in on the insults. If Martin does not want to listen to you there are filters and mail blockers. He has to be hateful to you and reply every time you start a thread only because he is jealous of people talking to you instead of to him. Ignore him. If you did not reply to him he would have nearly no one talking to him. I can believe he has nothing better to do with his time. Tell him to rotate. Best Regards George > <Endlessly repeated material deleted> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why are you so against peer reviewed publication? Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong and only abuse him. You repeat the same thing to him again and again and again and tell people to ignore him because all he does is repeat. I think you are jealous. People completely ignore your posts but they talk to him. I have seen you say all he does is cut and paste the same old material. Well I looked at some of your "peer review" papers. Most of them are just in hobbyist amateur web journals and not in peer reviewed scientific journals at all. They are difficult to read sometimes with the text being very randomly jumbled up. Then I followed some of your paper references to earlier papers which are also in the hobbyist magazines and found out why. You mostly cut and paste from the text and references of other articles by other people and do nothing new yourself to explain the theories or explain what you are doing. Sometimes whole sentences can be seen to be cut and paste. Gerald at least uses cut and paste to mix up his own original idea. Even if that idea is unscientific and a bit strange at least it is his. All you do is attack him and abuse him and not his ideas. Your own peer review work is just in little amateur journals on the web and cut and paste of earlier work done by others. I think you are just jealous of him. You repeat time and again that people should ignore him but they already do ignore you. Lots of people talk to him but very few talk to you. If you abuse Gerald some one might talk to you so you repeat the abuse time and again with the same message. Well, Gerald, you keep doing it if you want at least it is your own. Not like Mad Man Martin The Troll King who uses cut and paste of web material and other hobbyist work and when that is ignored runs to insult you and the Einstein hating dude and the Mars fossil dude hoping someone will talk to him by joining in on the insults. If Martin does not want to listen to you there are filters and mail blockers. He has to be hateful to you and reply every time you start a thread only because he is jealous of people talking to you instead of to him. Ignore him. If you did not reply to him he would have nearly no one talking to him. Tell him to rotate. Best Regards George > <Endlessly repeated material deleted> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why are you so against peer reviewed publication? Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong and only abuse him. You repeat the same thing to him again and again and again and tell people to ignore him because all he does is repeat. I think you are jealous. People completely ignore your posts but they talk to him. I have seen you say all he does is cut and paste the same old material. Well I looked at some of your "peer review" papers. Most of them are just in hobbyist amateur web journals and not in peer reviewed scientific journals at all. They are difficult to read sometimes with the text being very randomly jumbled up. Then I followed some of your paper references to earlier papers which are also in the hobbyist magazines and found out why. You mostly cut and paste from the text and references of other articles by other people and do nothing new yourself to explain the theories or explain what you are doing. Sometimes whole sentences can be seen to be cut and paste. Gerald at least uses cut and paste to mix up his own original idea. Even if that idea is unscientific and a bit strange at least it is his. All you do is attack him and abuse him and not his ideas. Your own peer review work is just in little amateur journals on the web and cut and paste of earlier work done by others. I think you are just jealous of him. You repeat time and again that people should ignore him but they already do ignore you. Lots of people talk to him but very few talk to you. If you abuse Gerald some one might talk to you so you repeat the abuse time and again with the same message. Well, Gerald, you keep doing it if you want at least it is your own. Not like Mad Man Martin The Troll King who uses cut and paste of web material and other hobbyist work and when that is ignored runs to insult you and the Einstein hating dude and the Mars fossil dude hoping someone will talk to him by joining in on the insults. If Martin does not want to listen to you there are filters and mail blockers. He has to be hateful to you and reply every time you start a thread only because he is jealous of people talking to you instead of to him. Ignore him. If you did not reply to him he would have nearly no one talking to him. Tell him to rotate. Best Regards George > <Endlessly repeated material deleted> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why are you so against peer reviewed publication? Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong and only abuse him. You repeat the same thing to him again and again and again and tell people to ignore him because all he does is repeat. I think you are jealous. People completely ignore your posts but they talk to him. I have seen you say all he does is cut and paste the same old material. Well I looked at some of your "peer review" papers. Most of them are just in hobbyist amateur web journals and not in peer reviewed scientific journals at all. They are difficult to read sometimes with the text being very randomly jumbled up. Then I followed some of your paper references to earlier papers which are also in the hobbyist magazines and found out why. You mostly cut and paste from the text and references of other articles by other people and do nothing new yourself to explain the theories or explain what you are doing. Sometimes whole sentences can be seen to be cut and paste. Gerald at least uses cut and paste to mix up his own original idea. Even if that idea is unscientific and a bit strange at least it is his. All you do is attack him and abuse him and not his ideas. Your own peer review work is just in little amateur journals on the web and cut and paste of earlier work done by others. I think you are just jealous of him. You repeat time and again that people should ignore him but they already do ignore you. Lots of people talk to him but very few talk to you. If you abuse Gerald some one might talk to you so you repeat the abuse time and again with the same message. Well, Gerald, you keep doing it if you want at least it is your own. Not like Mad Man Martin The Troll King who uses cut and paste of web material and other hobbyist work and when that is ignored runs to insult you and the Einstein hating dude and the Mars fossil dude hoping someone will talk to him by joining in on the insults. If Martin does not want to listen to you there are filters and mail blockers. He has to be hateful to you and reply every time you start a thread only because he is jealous of people talking to you instead of to him. Ignore him. If you did not reply to him he would have nearly no one talking to him. Tell him to rotate. Best Regards George On Jun 27, 3:01 am, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)" <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Why are you so against peer reviewed publication? He knows perfectly well that the scientific community is dominated by empiricists who have fallen for Flamsteed's mistake, hook, line, and sinker! In any case, he doesn't even _claim_ to be a scientist - merely an ordinary lay person who is seeing what should be as obvious as the nose on one's face to any other ordinary person, particularly with the benefits of modern imaging. So his failure to submit a paper to an astronomical journal is not because he knows, deep down in his heart of hearts that he's wrong. (Even if we might wonder for other reasons that this just might be the case.) It's because he doesn't have a big technical argument to present. His message is very simple - the Emperor Newton has no clothes! So, he figures that if he explains the very obvious in a forum read by ordinary people - who haven't had their minds irretrievably warped by a scientific education - _somebody_ might get it, and be able to explain it more clearly than he can, in language the scientific community will have no choice but to accept! This is a mistaken dream on his part, because he really is just plain wrong, in a simple manner that's obvious even to people who haven't mastered the intricacies of calculus. But however false his world view may be, attempting peer-reviewed publication really isn't an act consistent with that view, so he can hardly be faulted for that omission. Someday, if he ever gets his wish that there'll be an *authority* to keep science from straying into misguided paths, we'll celebrate St. Severinus Boethius' Day on October 23rd, and relax with a nice game of Rithmomachy... http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo0107.htm John Savard On Jun 27, 5:01 am, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)" <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Why are you so against peer reviewed publication? Are these two papers by Martin in an amateur hobbyist electronic periodical what Martin means by "peer review"? http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej87.shtml http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej92.shtml These two papers contain fine examples of quack science. The author shows that he has no idea what O-C is. He says the published ephemerises are wrong but does not give a new ephemeris. This is because you can not give a sensible new ephemeris from two consecutive eclipses. For the same reason you can not use two solitary consecutive eclipses to show another ephemeris to be wrong. Only the publishing of the measurements has any meaning, if they can be believed to have been done properly by some one who then talks gibberish in the rest of the articles. O-C just does not work that way. He also makes a sign mistake in one of the formulas in at least one of the papers. This then makes the result in that paper wrong. He can not even do arithmetic. If this is what Martin means by peer review then Gerard should condense his theories into a small article and send them to this electronic periodical and not be afraid of being rejected. If the two papers above are examples of this peer review then quack science is quite welcome. Best regards George > <Endlessly repeated material deleted> > > You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor > variations of the same material again and again and again. The more I look into this the funnier it gets. Funny hilarious and funny sick. http://groups.google.com/group/aavsodatasection/browse_thread/thread/1a8ee3c10ef70f73 Even in variable star work Martin is ignored. He offers his expert knowledge probably from his many famous projects that he keeps mentioning and no one has ever heard of even out of peer review. There are links to them on usenet spammed by him over many groups and all with very few replies. Less replies than Gerard gets and Gerard does not only receive abuse but some real replies and advise. When Martin offers his help in that thread there is no answer but an answer for a later message from another arrives. Go Gerard! He is simply just jealous that you get all this attention and he gets ignored. usenet looks to be just a home for cyber bullies who can not get any attention elsewhere and mad theories. Pity. Disappointed. George > and Gerard > does not only receive abuse but some real replies and advise. But does he make use of the real replies and advice that he gets? Does he heed them at all? John Savard >Well that clinches it. Gerald doesn't have a clue about orbital >mechanics and the related effects such as seasonal changes in weather >and climate zones. I'm afraid your detailed explanation (below) fell on >deaf ears. He must live in a world where the definition of the word >'tilt' is different from our universe. He lives in a world where several things are different. He believes his intuition is far more enlightening than basic math and science. He cannot imagine how his intuition could be wrong, primarily due to his inabilities to do math and imagine more than one discrete motion at a time. As such, he really does live in Hell, a world in which God and all the monsters under his bed have the same factual basis as the rising of the Sun. Medieval Europe, pretty much. How a guy from the Middle Ages wrangled access to the internet escapes me. Maybe he's really an alchemist who unwittingly conjured up a temporal displacement field and a usenet account. Or perhaps he's the first alchemist to accidentally make LSD, the rest of us being, rather disturbingly, nothing more than a hallucination. -- Dave > >Well that clinches it. Gerald doesn't have a clue about orbital > >mechanics and the related effects such as seasonal changes in weather [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Or perhaps he's the first alchemist to accidentally make LSD, the rest > of us being, rather disturbingly, nothing more than a hallucination. Kelleher's mind "blue-screened" long ago. On Jun 28, 12:55 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote: > > >Well that clinches it. Gerald doesn't have a clue about orbital > > >mechanics and the related effects such as seasonal changes in weather [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once and I will let you know whether you have those distinct commie sentiments or whether you are a good American,even a non response is good enough for me to make the judgement.It is not the fact itself but the silly fiction creating way that you can arrive at the alternative 'sidereal time' conclusion,that being said, you have a chance to state the proper value before you ever squeek outa sentence again. It is not the well meaning enviro guys who created the 'climate change' mess nor the opportunistic politicians,it was astrologers like yourself and the rest here who turned astronomy into a weakminded affair. > Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once.... Why tell when we can make a direct measurement? Direct observation trump poor reasoning every time. Bring your stop watch and together we will time the 360° rotation of the earth -- and verify it to be 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me know if you need airfare. > > Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once.... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the earth -- and verify it to be 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me > know if you need airfare. For that would work, he would have to agree to your *definition* of "turn once" wherein the return of a star (which he acknowledges takes place in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds) corresponds to the Earth turning through 360 degrees. So what is needed is not a new observation, but rather a way to convince him that there is no reasonable and meaningful way to view the Earth's rotation with respect to the "mean sun" as its real rotation. We have the natural noon cycle, as he calls it, that incorporates the Equation of Time, and we have the uniform rotation with respect to the stars, and that is it. Of course, since he writes of the "analemma hoax", it could be that he does not seek to claim that the Earth has a motion which corresponds to 24 hours of uniform mechanical clock time, but instead that he sees the natural noon cycle as the Earth's true rotation. John Savard > > Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once.... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the earth -- and verify it to be 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me > know if you need airfare. That value created an overheated system from the late 17th century to 1904 as they tried to escape or find away around the elaborate scheme which Newton created by using a modelling system (absolute space) based on observed motions (relative motions) while retaining a common astrological framework otherwise known as the Equatorial coordinate system. http://books.google.com/books?ei=B0tGSsqWAo_wyASWr_VR&id=wa3CskhHaIgC&dq=Einstei n's+Space-Time&q=mach The inverted reference system for daily and orbital motions based on timekeeping averages is under discussion by Mach in the pages above is actually the fictional system yet the purpose is not to get lost in the forest of different associations or the crosscurrents of manipulation that Isaac used to diminish astronomy and promote his experimental agenda but to demonstrate how modern images changes things. http://ealdent.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/formalhaut_b.jpg Whereas Newton created 'absolute space',a byword for modelling, by trying to obliterate planetary comparisons and replace it by directly appealing to Ra/Dec conventions,today dynamicists can see a solar system in motion such as the Formalhaut system thereby disproving this false absolute/relative space which does not anticipate what modern imaging can actually do - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses." Newton Instead of this unrelenting hostility,it should be an easier task to explain exactly where Newton is getting his absolute/relative time and space from,how it relates to the early 20th century concepts,how it relates back to the antecedent astronomical methods and insights and ultimately how to open up the avenues again for productive work. You ain't going to do anything by timing the return of a star using a 24 hour average and then concluding that planetary dynamics can be explained that way no more than you can look out your window and conclude that the Earth is flat by looking at a local piece of ground. > Instead of this unrelenting hostility,it should be an easier task to > explain exactly where Newton is getting his absolute/relative time and > space from,how it relates to the early 20th century concepts,how it > relates back to the antecedent astronomical methods and insights and > ultimately how to open up the avenues again for productive work. It is true that the stars have proper motion. These motions are slow, however, so it is valid to use the stars as an approximation to a static frame of reference. We still see constellations in the sky that were given names by the ancient Greeks. > You ain't going to do anything by timing the return of a star using a > 24 hour average and then concluding that planetary dynamics can be > explained that way no more than you can look out your window and > conclude that the Earth is flat by looking at a local piece of > ground. Our mechanical clocks split time up into uniform periods, forcing us to average the length of a solar day, which varies according to the Equation of Time, so that we can use a mechanical clock for daily timekeeping - because that's the way mechanical systems behave. A clock minute is the same to a clock whether it is day or night, summer or winter. Since the mechanical laws work according to this uniform time scale, if one seeks to explain the motions of the planets mechanically, we would use this time scale as well. And this explanation is successful; the return of a star is uniform according to mechanical clock time, Kepler's equation can be used to predict the motion of a body in an elliptical orbit, and further elaborations let us see the small effects due to the gravitational influences of the planets on each other (perturbations). Perturbations in the orbit of Uranus are what let astronomers know in which part of the sky to look for Neptune, if you want proof we are on the right track, and not derailed as you claim. So we have indeed done something; we have done a great deal using mechanical time as our basis for studying the motions of the planets. You may hold a grudge against Laplace because he was an avowed atheist, but that is your problem. John Savard >> Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once.... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the earth -- and verify it to be 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me > know if you need airfare. At this point I would be elated if he would explain with a few words, (one particular word will do) why the earth's rotational axis remains fixed in space towards Polaris. That would be a ground breaking achievement for him. I can't imagination anyone learning about the orbital mechanics of the solar system not asking themselves why the rotational axis of the planets remain fixed in their respective directions to the stars as they orbit the sun. Perhaps his intuition tells him that it's a non issue and doesn't need to be explored. I remember when I was a kid learning about the solar system and the causes of the seasons on the earth, thinking it was odd that the earth's axis was tilted but it didn't keep one pole tilted towards the sun throughout it's yearly orbit. It seemed more intuitive to me that the axis remain fixed to the sun rather than the distant stars. Of course if this were true, there wouldn't be any seasons as we know them now, just a range of climate zones. It would be a more extreme case than the earth having no tilt at all. Gerald likes to use the very extreme case of Uranus with it's almost parallel axis to it's orbital plane but he apparently doesn't wonder why it remains that way. I learned later that the earth's axis would have to precess over the period of a year to keep it aligned with the sun. Most of us know this would be a violation of a particular property of rotating bodies but Gerald doesn't seem to care. A 'real' astronomer would have done some research on the subject. As for Gerald, nada. > >> Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once.... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (one particular word will do) why the earth's rotational axis remains > fixed in space towards Polaris. You want to be elated then grow up,realise that the 24 hour timekeeping average is a product of natural noon and the daily cycle where the natural cyclical variations are evened out against the orbital cycle - "Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion." Christian Huygens If you want to be really elated,then you find out that the same Equation of Time facility which keeps the averages 24 hour days ticking over - Monday into Tuesday into Wednesday ect ,also keeps the daily cycle constant at 24 hours.As the 24 hour averages is weighed against the orbital cycle,it also means daily rotation is considered constant with the inequalities in natural noon due to orbital dynamics and characteristics. A person who cannot grasp the basic references for the daily cycle and how the variations in the natural noon cycle correlate with 24 hour/ 360 degrees and the information which contains planetary shape and rotational characteristics is no teacher and no astronomer - period !. That would be a ground breaking > achievement for him. I can't imagination anyone learning about the > orbital mechanics of the solar system not asking themselves why the > rotational axis of the planets remain fixed in their respective > directions to the stars as they orbit the sun. I feel you are all behaving like spoilt children which is why it is becoming unbearable here. The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a 24 hour timekeeping average within the framework of the 365/366 day calendar system.Until you come to terms with the original references for daily and orbital motions you will not know why inverting them as Flamsteed did,does so much damage. Perhaps his intuition > tells him that it's a non issue and doesn't need to be explored. > I remember when I was a kid learning about the solar system and the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Gerald doesn't seem to care. A 'real' astronomer would have done some > research on the subject. As for Gerald, nada. > The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it > shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a > 24 hour timekeeping average within the framework of the 365/366 day > calendar system.Until you come to terms with the original references > for daily and orbital motions you will not know why inverting them as > Flamsteed did,does so much damage. The return of a star being constant, in units of time derived from a mechanical clock, shows that _something_ about the Earth's motion can be naturally measured by mechanical clocks. Since a mechanical clock is a simple system, using the simple motion of the Earth as a starting point does not do "damage", it gives us a solid place to stand to begin explaining the complexities of the natural noon cycle, which has the variability of the Equation of Time in it. If we combine the Earth's orbital motion with this view of the Earth's rotation, we see how the Earth's orbital motion yields the Equation of Time. Yes, our customary unit for the dials of mechanical clocks comes from averaging the solar day. This is a convenience. But we could have started with a timekeeping unit based on a pendulum clock with a pendulum exactly one foot long, and found the return of a star was constant by such a clock - so your apparent objection that the solar day must be the starting point, and going from the average of the solar day to the return of a star and then going back to explain the solar day from it is circular reasoning is not really valid. John Savard > A person who cannot grasp the basic references for the daily cycle and > how the variations in the natural noon cycle correlate with 24 hour/ > 360 degrees and the information which contains planetary shape and > rotational characteristics is no teacher and no astronomer - period !. But... but... but... this EXACTLY describes you! You just cannot grasp the basic reference for the daily cycle, you cannot grasp the concept of frames of reference, you cannot grasp the concept of the Sidereal day, or the analemma, or a score of other well-established truths about celestial mechanics. It is YOU who is no teacher and no Astronomer in these forums... and everyone knows this but you - period! > I feel you are all behaving like spoilt children which is why it is > becoming unbearable here. Well, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen... I for one would not miss you at all, because you are apparently unteachable, you hate being corrected, you are always defensive and argumentative. Your arguments are weak and I find myself disappointed by your consistent failure to follow through on any promising lines of inquiry. You repeat yourself over and over again. You have been given detailed explanations about how and why you are wrong, but you choose to view any peer evaluation with cold disdain. I can't remember a single instance where you have acknowledged or otherwise thanked anyone here for teaching you something you didn't already know. In the end, there is not much to be gained be trying to teach a pig to sing, it just annoys the pig and wastes everyone else's time. > The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it > shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a > 24 hour timekeeping average within the framework of the 365/366 day > calendar system. So... what DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 tell you? It certainly must mean something, doesn't it? It doesn't have anything at all to do with the 24 hour solar day except for the similarity in length. If the Earth was in a much smaller orbit, for example, and would therefore move faster along that orbit, then the Sidereal Day and the Solar Day would not be so comparable in length. Think about it. "Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid." - King Solomon \Paul A > > The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it > > shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > \Paul A I have seen seen such hatred directed against the most basic of all facts that are humanly possible to consider - how long does it take the Earth to turn once even when the daily cycle of day/night is based on rotation to the central Sun with noon as the benchmark.The information contained in the 24 hour value for rotation through 360 degrees contains all the characteristics of shape and rotation - http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html It was never a question of convincing people of this nightmare but actually finding people who can actually read and interpret the correct references for daily and orbital motions that do not have the Nazi taint *,as though Huygens never existed nor Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo except as props for a fictional history that supports empiricism. What must people have to do when they spin a world globe through 360 degrees and watch the 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour longitude meridians follow suit and still come to the wrong conclusion ? - http://homepages.ius.edu/PGALVIN/lat_long/Geographic%20Grid_files/meridian.jpg The astronomical equivalent of 2=2 = 5 is the 23 hour 56 min 04 second value for daily rotation through 360 degrees and the reasoning behind it and should anyone feel disgusted with themselves for supporting this timekeeping average which cannot be used for explaining planetary dynamics,then the only comparable group I see mentioned in a similar vain are actually the Nazi- * "Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell I am called mad for believing that the Earth turns once in 24 hours and especially with all the history behind it and somehow there would have to be a few people that are aware that something is chronically wrong to disturb this most basic of all astronomical and human facts.I do not think you are mad for believing the sidereal time value,just do not have the astronomical feel with deal with the matter and get rid of this nauseating tendency to make up observations to suit conclusions and that is where the real insanity exists. > > > The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it > > > shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > of this nauseating tendency to make up observations to suit > conclusions and that is where the real insanity exists. You never answered the question - no surprise there - that being "what significance DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 have?" Clearly it must mean something... even to you. "The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked..." - H.L. Mencken \Paul A > > > > The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it > > > > shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > "what significance DOES the return of a star in 23:56:04 have?" > Clearly it must mean something... even to you. It takes two qualifiers,both based on timekeeping averages,to explain the constant return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.The value means nothing in terms of planetary dynamics no more than the wandering 'analemma' Sun does based on the average 24 hour day,it does show the danger of using timekeeping averages to model planetary dynamics and solar system and universal structure while as an observational convenience in its Ra/Dec mode,it is excellent. There are excellent tutorials giving the basic outlines which links clocks to the daily cycle and planetary geometry and geography even if they do not get into the type of detail which Huygens goes into or my additions explaining the planetary dynamics behind the natural noon variations - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE Most here probably consider themselves intelligent but in this matter I have yet to see anything but a sort of indoctrination.Now,it is not the value but the actual means by which the 24 hour/360 degree value is arrived at in order to move the material into a more productive mode. Sincerely,if you wish to consider me mad for believing the Earth turns once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour then leave it at that,all the historical and technical details support the reasoning behind that value while the 'sidereal time' has a definite beginning with Flamsteed. > "The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most > that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > It takes two qualifiers,both based on timekeeping averages,to explain > the constant return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dynamics and solar system and universal structure while as an > observational convenience in its Ra/Dec mode,it is excellent. It's true the Sun doesn't have a real motion corresponding to the analemma. It would, however, have to have such a motion if the Earth rotated once in an average 24 hour day. I've pointed out the flawed logic behind your "two qualifiers" statement - you may think that astronomers are using circular reasoning, but they could have started with a mechanical clock whose unit of time had no relationship to the day. So the dependence on the timekeeping average of the solar day is only illusory. If people consider you "mad", it is not because you find the idea that the Earth rotates in 23 hours and 56 minutes, instead of in 24 hours, to be strange. Many people find it strange at first when introduced to astronomy. But your unwillingness to accept simple and patient explanations, to engage in substantive discussion, your determination that you must know better than generations of people the world has recognized as astronomers... these are the things that truly leave you open to criticism. John Savard > Sincerely,if you wish to consider me mad for believing the Earth turns > once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour then leave it at that,all the > historical and technical details support the reasoning behind that > value while the 'sidereal time' has a definite beginning with > Flamsteed. I've told you many times before, I fully agree with you that the Earth turns 15 degrees per hour each 24 hours, totaling 360 degrees, WITH RESPECT TO THE SUN. We do not disagree here. Flamsteed knew this, too, but he also noted that with respect to the stars the rotation only took 23:56:04. Both observations are legitimate because they reference different frames. What is so hard to understand here? There is really nothing strange about these observations, nothing mystical or magical, they are what they are, and the subsequent model that was created to explain these timings does a magnificent job. Back to basics for you. “Careful. We don't want to learn from this.” - Calvin & Hobbes \Paul A >Back to basics for you. > >Careful. We don't want to learn from this. >- Calvin & Hobbes He might have to learn calculus first. ;-) http://pds6.egloos.com/pds/200710/08/67/e0016867_4709abda0fb5b.gif -- Dave > > Sincerely,if you wish to consider me mad for believing the Earth turns > > once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour then leave it at that,all the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > turns 15 degrees per hour each 24 hours, totaling 360 degrees, WITH > RESPECT TO THE SUN. That is incorrect,the natural noon cycles are unequal and there is no external reference for independent daily rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours,it is a quirk of how the average 24 hour day is transfered to daily rotation as a constant after the Equation of Time is applied to natural noon as one 24 hour day turns into the next 24 hour day then so is rotation kept constant. I am satisfied that the message is finally getting through where it matters and can leave you and the rest to sort things out among yourselves in creating whatever story you like based on 'sidereal time'. > \Paul A > That is incorrect,the natural noon cycles are unequal and there is no > external reference for independent daily rotation through 360 degrees > in 24 hours, Precisely. But there is an external reference for independent daily rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds. So we think it makes abundant sense to start with that. John Savard > That is incorrect,the natural noon cycles are unequal and there is no > external reference for independent daily rotation through 360 degrees [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > yourselves in creating whatever story you like based on 'sidereal > time'. Speaking of sorting out, Gerald, bring your stop watch and together we will time the 360° rotation of the earth -- and verify it to be 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me know if you need airfare. > Speaking of sorting out, Gerald, bring your stop watch and together > we will time the 360° rotation of the earth -- and verify it to be > 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me know if you need airfare. Here's a simpler question for him. Does the Moon rotate? John Savard >> Speaking of sorting out, Gerald, bring your stop watch and together >> we will time the 360° rotation of the earth -- and verify it to be >> 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me know if you need airfare. > >Here's a simpler question for him. Does the Moon rotate? Oooh, hey, that's a good one. He will of course neither answer with a yes or a no nor make any meaningful claims at all about the Moon's rotation or orbit. Guaranteed or your money back. -- Dave > >Here's a simpler question for him. Does the Moon rotate? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Guaranteed or your money back. You may well be right. But if he answered "no", that would at least be fully consistent with his identifying 24 hours as the period of the Earth's rotation. John Savard >> >Here's a simpler question for him. Does the Moon rotate? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >fully consistent with his identifying 24 hours as the period of the >Earth's rotation. Yep. I suspect that he knows that the Moon does rotate and that he is at complete loss for a way to reconcile the fact with his ideas about rotation. Since he hasn't done so by now, I suspect he'll pretend the question doesn't exist. Much easier that way, you know. When you /know/ your intuition is right, you needn't bother with pedestrian things like cogent arguments. -- Dave > >> >Here's a simpler question for him. Does the Moon rotate? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > When you /know/ your intuition is right, you needn't bother with > pedestrian things like cogent arguments. *Does* he know the Moon rotates? Or is he consistent, and does he claim that the Moon orbits the Earth, and that is all that it does; it keeps one side towards the Earth, and so the fact that the return of a star on the Moon would seem - to an imaginary observer - to take place in about a month is an irrelevant external reference... considering the Moon's rotation, or lack thereof, in any frame but the one embodying the relation between it and its parent, the Earth, is illegal framehopping. I don't see why he couldn't be perfectly consistent here. Just as the Equation of Time shows why we have to think of the Earth rotating in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds, libration (in longitude) shows why we have to think of the Moon as rotating, of course. John Savard > > That is incorrect,the natural noon cycles are unequal and there is no > > external reference for independent daily rotation through 360 degrees [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > we will time the 360° rotation of the earth -- and verify it to be > 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me know if you need airfare. Well Sam,for a guy who was honest enough to come out and say that the Equation of Time does not have any links with the daily cycle says more about the other people in this forum than it does about you - > Rotation of bodies, including the Earth has nothing to do with the > equation of time. The Equation of time deals with the "solar day" and > elliptical orbit of the earth about the sun.... totally independent > of the measure of rotation of the earth. - Sam Wormley The Earth turns at 69.17 miles every 4 minutes at the Equator and turning with a slower speed towards the geographical poles,it is so fundamental and enjoyable that I welcome any of those websites which show that if you turn a world globe once,you will turn 1 hour through 15 degrees and 24 hours through 360 degrees - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html I don't really consider you or anyone else anything at the moment,only unbearable for doing what you do for no good reason other than you have an indoctrinated story built up in your head.The spirit of a nation is about individual freedom to do your best,not the indoctrinated ideologies which condition things to a dull and dour consensus which is why all the empiricists here detest faith and intuitive intelligence which balances the spirit of an individual with the productive background of a nation. I don't appeal to you nor do I mind if you believe the 'sidereal time' expresses daily rotation ,the great timekeeping system which links the daily cycle with 24 hours is just one of those enjoyable things that does not require too much effort to see how the pieces fit together yet get it wrong and you lose planetary dynamics and much else.It is a matter of finding people who like using modern imaging and can work with planetary dynamics and cast a brief gaze at the amazing wordplay and astrological framework of the last century. >> Speaking of sorting out, Gerald, bring your stop watch and together >> we will time the 360° rotation of the earth -- and verify it to be [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > show that if you turn a world globe once,you will turn 1 hour through > 15 degrees and 24 hours through 360 degrees - My approach to trying to have a conversation with you, Gerald, is to simplify to a single concept... say the rotion of the earth. Then later, we can add the sun, moon or whatever. But the simple rotation of the earth is just that... and earth rotates about 361° in 24 hours or more precisely it rotates 360° in 86,164.09+ seconds. Once that is confirmed by observation (as it is every day) we can start to add in other things, like the earth's orbit about the sun. We have to keep the concepts simple and have clarity before building on to the more complex. > >> Speaking of sorting out, Gerald, bring your stop watch and together > >> we will time the 360° rotation of the earth -- and verify it to be [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > We have to keep the concepts simple and have clarity before building > on to the more complex. You do not have to do anything other than accept how the 24 hour day is extracted as an average from the natural noon inequality over an orbit,how this 24 hour day takes on the terms of Monday/Tuesday/ Wednesday and how that average was adapted to the daily cycle as a constant . > Rotation of bodies, including the Earth has nothing to do with the > equation of time. The Equation of time deals with the "solar day" and > elliptical orbit of the earth about the sun.... totally independent > of the measure of rotation of the earth. - Sam Wormley When you write something like that Sam without the slightest hint of objection from anyone else then even I have to concede the unchallenged luxuries of saying whatever you wish,something which happened after 1905,then any semblance of a conversation nigh on impossible. http://www.aboutromania.com/World2.gif Turn a world globe once and the 24 hour meridians follow suit at 1 hour per 15 degrees of geographical separation or 4 minutes for every 69.17 miles travelled at the maximum Equatorial speed.Somehow you and the rest have an aversion to this correlation and I am at a loss to explain it beyond the confines of a cult consensus because the alternative 'sidereal time' value has a definite beginning with Flamsteed and his inverted references. You teach sidereal time as anything other than an observational convenience in American schools and you introduce old world prejudices of the worst kind,teach the longitude principles which link daily rotation and clocks to planetary geometry and things become lively and enjoyable again for your student and good for the wellbeing of a country.Even without explaining the Equation of Time correction needed to make the system work,an agreed convention which splits the Earth into time and geographical separation through its rotational characteristics - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE People calling me insane for believing the Earth rotates once in 24 hours with the reasoning to support it has become unbearable,not because there are about 50 different alternative attempts to make observations fit the 'sidereal time' value,but that the intellectual platform which creates the daily and calendar timekeeping averages is so enjoyable. and so important. >> Rotation of bodies, including the Earth has nothing to do with the >> equation of time. The Equation of time deals with the "solar day" and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > happened after 1905,then any semblance of a conversation nigh on > impossible. You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple telescope, you can see that Polaris stays with half a degree of the polar axis the whole 24 hours, confirming that the earth axis is tilted with respect to the ecliptic resulting in seasons. Prepare to stay for six months so you can watch the sun "sink away" as we head into winter. > >> Rotation of bodies, including the Earth has nothing to do with the > >> equation of time. The Equation of time deals with the "solar day" and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > polar axis the whole 24 hours, confirming that the earth axis is tilted > with respect to the ecliptic resulting in seasons. Somehow you can have the Sun and stars together in the same sky just like the 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax ( I have worked within the Arctic circle in Northern Norway ) but like all the other things ranging from history to technical issues,these are just things you have built up in your head and do not exist in actuality. I noticed that at the end of of every news item,the NOAA articles now puts a slogan or mantra on - "NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources. " http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090622_hfc.html Yet a simple search using 'seasons' as the keyword on its website brings up the usual explanation - http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php Even allowing for the unrelenting and universal hostility towards the issue of the dynamics behind seasonal changes,an organisation heavily involved in global climate like NOAA is obligated to explain the seasonal temperature variations first and properly in order to discriminate between seasonal weather and global climate inputs and this is not happening insofar as referencing 'tilt' to the central Sun,trying to make weather look like climate and then issuing conclusions based on a single item like carbon dioxide has all the hallmarks of desperation and recklessness. > Prepare to stay for six months so you can watch the sun "sink away" > as we head into winter. I worked in Northern Norway which is why I know that the major input for seasonal temperature variations is not inclination to solar radiation based on 'tilt' but on the length of time a large latitudinal area spends in solar radiation and in the orbital shadow along with oceanic and continental factors.The problem with modifying the view of 'tilt' which you inherit from Copernicus is that even a story can be manufactured to ignore that Copernicus expressed seasonal variations using variable tilt to the Sun - "... the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were affected exclusively by the motion of the centre, no inequality of days and nights would be observed. On the contrary,it day or the day of equal daylight and darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever the character of the season, it would remain identical and unchanged." Copernicus A society that can distort even the ground rules,which is exactly what 'axial tilt to the orbital plane' does does not have a clear platform to discuss the seasons let alone global climate. 40 years ago this month,a nation and its can-do spirit of individual achievements put men on the moon in competition with a commie ideology with its emphasis on communal conformity,considering that anyone who now dares call attention to the reckless conclusion linking carbon dioxide directly to global temperature variations to the exclusion of all else is shunned and ignored while even basic planetary dynamics fact are distorted,is not living in the same America which produced the space program. You seem to have slipped back into your comfort zone where you mindlessly repeat the same old material again and again. Clearly you don't recognise your own mental illness - but the rest of us do! PLEASE SEEK THE HELP YOU NEED! On Jul 1, 11:46 am, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)" <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > You seem to have slipped back into your comfort zone where you > mindlessly repeat the same old material again and again. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > PLEASE SEEK THE HELP YOU NEED! The "rest of us" indeed !, There is no mystery to all this,a location at the Equator turns 69.17 miles every 4 minutes, 1037 miles every hour and 24901.5 miles in 24 hours where 1 degree of geographical separation equates to 4 minutes of clock time and all designed around the rotational characteristics of the Earth. For this I have people like you with this unrelenting screaming at me just because there are not enough people who can work their way through the differences which create a timekeeping standard as a matter of convenience and another set of references which isolate daily rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours.The modern world agrees on certain conventions, such as communication networks or computer standards and it is no different in ancient times as they created timekeeping standards for the equable 24 hour day and converting the raw orbital cycle into a linear progression of years by correcting the timekeeping calendar system back to the raw orbital cycle by adding a day every 4th year. All that is missing is an authority to set the conventions straight,show where the limitations are and halt this tendency to use the 'sidereal time' convenience to dictate planetary dynamics.The slow change which I see appearing is the wrong approach even if it is welcome,the matter requires people who are willing to deal with the matter effectively instead of this dithering I see here in the forum or looking for some loophole in order to prop up a simple and obvious mistake that distinguishes ' sidereal time' as a timekeeping average from its limitations for planetary dynamics and its effects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88I3OBtNO58 Of course I expect everyone to jump through the loophole provided in the earlier part of the video and ignore the later one of 15 degrees per hour but then again it is not what astronomers do,they are supposed to know how the average 24 hour day transfers to daily rotation as a constant by using the common references to the daily Sun and the Equation of Time correction. All this is just a continuation of a struggle between astrologers and astronomers with astronomers now back in the ascendency after centuries of astrological dominance.It is not a popularity contest but one of vibrancy and good to see a few green shoots appear. > it is not what astronomers do,they are > supposed to know how the average 24 hour day transfers to daily > rotation as a constant by using the common references to the daily Sun > and the Equation of Time correction. What astronomers know is how the axial rotation with a period of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds - not only relative to the distant "fixed" stars, which, in themselves you *could* validly dismiss as astrological and irrelevent, but also relative to _the coordinate system established by the relationship between the Earth's rotational axis (or the celestial equator, which equivalently defines the same direction - you can find Polaris either way) and the Earth's orbital plane, the ecliptic_ - transfers, with the addition of the Earth's orbital motion (with its specific characteristics of taking a year, and being in the ecliptic plane, which is, I suppose, what you mean by an "orbital specific") to the natural noon cycle. And the 24 hour day used on our clocks is a timekeeping convenience derived from averaging the time the natural noon cycle takes. It has no other significance... but time itself, measured by some uniform system, on the other hand, _is_ fundamental. (A detail you miss, you refuse to notice that the return of a star could be timed with a pendulum clock with a pendulum of any arbitrary length, so you think our reasoning is circular.) There is no external reference for a uniform 24 hour day, as you have yourself said. But not only the distant stars are a reference for a uniform 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second period of axial rotation. More importantly, and, in fact the real reason we reject and refuse your advice as to how astronomy needs to be reformed, is that one aspect of the "orbital specific" of the Earth - the relationship of the Earth's axis of rotation to the plane of its orbit - is the real reference for the sidereal day, the one that makes it impossible to use a 24-hour day as a starting point. But then, you don't believe in a "wandering analemma Sun" either. You admire the chronometer of Harrison, so you don't ask us to throw away all our mechanical clocks, and go back to using sundials. But, given the fact that the period to which mechanical clocks are tuned - the 24 hour average of natural noon - is derived from natural noon, you insist that mechanical clockwork time must be regarded as strictly subordinate to natural noon. So using our mechanical clocks to time the return of a star (as an approximation to the return of the equinoctial point), to notice that the Earth's axial rotation is smooth and regular in mechanical clock terms when viewed in that frame... is illegitimate framehopping or whatever. Your position is based on a specious accusation of circular reasoning. The 24 hour span of time to which clocks are set derives from natural noon. The mechanism of a clock itself does not. So we can start from clock time to understand that the Earth moves simply, in relation to the stars, by clock time, and then combine this simple motion with the specifics of the Earth's orbit to indeed explain the Equation of Time in a sensible, understandable, and, yes, enjoyable way. Your one error, however, throws all into confusion. John Savard >> You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see >> the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ranging from history to technical issues,these are just things you > have built up in your head and do not exist in actuality. If you were an amateur astronomer, you would know that bright stars are visible in daylight with a small telescope. Polaris can be viewed easily with a telescope, especially when the sun is low on the horizon... that happens a lot at the poles. > >> You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see > >> the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > easily with a telescope, especially when the sun is low on the > horizon... that happens a lot at the poles. Here is your solar vs sidereal time hoax based on having the Sun and stars in the same sky - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day So you have the Earth rotate to noon in 24 hours and the Earth rotate to the star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,now that you are into observational certainties using imaging, you have to demonstrate that each consequitive noon is 24 hours exactly in order to maintain the structure to the return of a star. http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif The .986 degree difference is based on rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours- 360 degrees = 24 hours 1 degree = 4 minutes .986 degree = 3 minutes 56 seconds 24 hours minus 3 minutes 56 seconds = 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds So Sam,good to see into actual observations for a change,of course you are among empiricists with no loyalty to children, family,community or nation therefore you will find it easy to wiggle your way out of a 24 hour natural noon.Go ahead,I welcome observations which show that natural noon returns in 24 hours now that you are the first to answer with observations. The correct answer is that noon cycles are unequal and the 'sidereal time vs solar time' is a hoax based on having the Sun and a star share the same sky. >So Sam,good to see into actual observations for a change,of course you >are among empiricists with no loyalty to children, family,community or >nation You're beginning to smell like a True Believer(tm). Might be time to bathe as the Patchouli no longer covers it. >The correct answer is that noon cycles are unequal and the 'sidereal >time vs solar time' is a hoax based on having the Sun and a star >share the same sky. Wow. That's not even cogent enough to be wrong, let alone right. I'm afraid you're coming off ever more like the Creationists and the Intelligent Designers. Here's the Creationist world view being crushed like the empty pop can it is: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1083565954 Here's another analysis of mythology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iUyAppOOU0 -- Dave >The correct answer is that noon cycles are unequal and the 'sidereal >time vs solar time' is a hoax based on having the Sun and a star >share the same sky. I'll not waste my time addressing the content of your beliefs, but I will ask this: what is the motivation behind this "hoax"? Hoaxes are perpetrated as practical jokes, satirically to motivate some sort of social change, or to make fun of something. They might be created to make money- a sort of con, perhaps. They typically fall apart if you have more than a handful of hoaxsters involved. So, given the difficulty of maintaining a hoax where the hoaxsters consist of every member of the educated establishment except yourself, and the apparent lack of anything to gain on anybody's part, I ask you: why? _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:56:19 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com The other option for the hoax is a cult,a hoax presumes that people are aware that there is a difference,in this case between inverted references for daily and orbital motions whereas a cult mindset such as yourself and most here just will not get it. A simple correlation where the Earth turns 69.17 miles every 4 minutes at the Equator and 24901.5 miles in 24 hours where 1 degree of geographical separation correlates with 4 minutes clock time making 24 hours/360 degrees is the most basic of all astronomical correlations,yet you just can't grasp it .The 'sidereal vs solar time' hoax has a definite beginning,that is why it is a hoax along with the wandering 'analemma' Sun. > A simple correlation where the Earth turns 69.17 miles every 4 > minutes at the Equator and 24901.5 miles in 24 hours where 1 degree > of geographical separation correlates with 4 minutes clock time making > 24 hours/360 degrees is the most basic of all astronomical > correlations,yet you just can't grasp it . This is correct, with respect to the sun, and no one here disputes this. We all grasp this simplest of concepts just fine, so knock off the disparaging remarks, it only makes you look even more stupid than normal. > The 'sidereal vs solar time' > hoax has a definite beginning,that is why it is a hoax along with the > wandering 'analemma' Sun. If you can't make the easy jump to the next frame of reference, all is lost for you. The famous dead astronomers had it right, but you have failed to properly interpret what they said. There is no 'sidereal vs solar' issue, they coexist just fine, once you understand frames. It is not really that hard for most of us. Please remove your cranial calculator from its rectal storage facility and open your horizons a little. Although celestial mechanics is ultimately very complicated, the fact of the matter is that the concepts themselves are fairly easy to grasp, given the right perspective. Again, it is too bad that you appear to be unteachable, because you have a lot to learn, and currently not much to offer. As per this chart, you have a faith-based methodology rather than a scientific method, and I think this sums you up quite nicely; http://www.gardendigest.com/images/methods2.gif \Paul A > > A simple correlation where the Earth turns 69.17 miles every 4 > > minutes at the Equator and 24901.5 miles in 24 hours where 1 degree [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This is correct, with respect to the sun, and no one here disputes > this. A proud teacher of astronomy stands before his pupils and explains where the average 24 hour day comes from and how the Equation of Time difference between the natural noon inequalities and the 24 hour day also serves the purpose of using the 'average' part to represent constant daily rotation.He can then show how the Earth turns at 69.17 miles every four minutes at the Equator making an entire 24 901.5 mile revolution in 24 hours or 1037 miles every hour or 15 degrees of geographical separation.He can take the lecture anywhere he likes after this,from climate to history,from geology to solar system structure ,from the calendar system which creates a linear progression of years out of a raw orbital cycle to modern imaging which explains most if not all of the concepts behind these great astronomical things. You dispute the value and reasoning behind the rotation of the Earth once in 24 hours even when spinning a world globe demonstrates with its 24 hour/360 degree longitude lines encapsulating the efforts of many civilisations of many millenia to come to a stable relationship between timekeeping and planetary dynamics.I do not hold Flamsteed to his mistake of inverting the references for daily and orbital motion nevertheless the consequences are severe. We all grasp this simplest of concepts just fine, so knock off > the disparaging remarks, it only makes you look even more stupid than > normal. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > \Paul A What none have you have done is presented the arguments against the turning of the planet through 360 degrees in 24 hours using a normal world globe - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg The natural noon cycle is the nearest observation to the daily cycle as a combination of daily rotational characteristics and orbital ones,the former constant while the latter is variable in speed and geometry hence there is no external reference for daily rotation as an independent motion yet the Equation of Time correction does an excellent job of maintaining both the equable 24 hour day and constant rotation seen as a teacher turns the planet through 360 degrees The other end of the scale are the large concepts built on the false inverted references or climate change issues but these can wait until somebody or some organisation has the guts to at least acknowledge two systems,the timekeeping Ra/Dec convenience modelled on timekeeping averages and the raw astronomical cycles and the convention of references which restore the daily cycle to its natural reference to the daily Sun. > What none have you have done is presented the arguments against the > turning of the planet through 360 degrees in 24 hours using a normal > world globe - > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg If you were to simulate the motions of the Earth by walking in a circle, holding such a globe in your hand, and turning it, to keep the Earth's North Pole always pointing to the star Polaris, you would have to keep the curved spine holding the globe, shown on the left side in the photograph, always in one direction relative to the points of the compass or the walls of the room. So to lead to an average 24 hour solar day, and the time zone to longitude correspondence resulting from that, the globe would have to rotate, compared to its base and the spine holding it... once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds. John Savard > The other option for the hoax is a cult,a hoax presumes that people > are aware that there is a difference,in this case between inverted > references for daily and orbital motions whereas a cult mindset such > as yourself and most here just will not get it. Ph'nglui mglw'nahf Newton R'lyeh wgah'nagl ftaghn? John Savard > So you have the Earth rotate to noon in 24 hours and the Earth rotate > to the star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,now that you are into > observational certainties using imaging, you have to demonstrate that > each consequitive noon is 24 hours exactly in order to maintain the > structure to the return of a star. No, this would only be true if the Earth's rotational axis was strictly perpendicular to the ecliptic, and the Earth's orbit was circular. Since those are not the specifics of the Earth's orbit, the Earth rotating to a star in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds only leads to a day which averages to 24 hours over the course of a year - and from those two causes, the inclination of the axis of the Earth's rotation to the ecliptic, and the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit, we get the Equation of Time. > The correct answer is that noon cycles are unequal and the 'sidereal > time vs solar time' is a hoax based on having the Sun and a star > share the same sky. What other sky is there for either the Sun or the stars to belong to? On the Earth, it is true, the atmosphere causes the glare of sunlight to obscure the stars during the day. On the Moon, there is no such problem. John Savard >>>> You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see >>>> the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple >>>> telescope, you can see that Polaris stays with half a degree of the >>>> polar axis the whole 24 hours, confirming that the earth axis is tilted >>>> with respect to the ecliptic resulting in seasons. >>> Somehow you can have the Sun and stars together in the same sky just >>> like the 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax ( I have worked within >>> the Arctic circle in Northern Norway ) but like all the other things >>> ranging from history to technical issues,these are just things you >>> have built up in your head and do not exist in actuality. >> If you were an amateur astronomer, you would know that bright stars >> are visible in daylight with a small telescope. Polaris can be viewed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day Gerald--You should read this link you posted... you might learn something with a bit of disciplined study. Thanks you posting the link! > >>>> You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see > >>>> the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The Wiki link was written by the trekkie who has the return of a star (a legitimate timekeeping average) in 24 hours 3 minutes 56 seconds - "Because the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at any one place at midnight will be about four minutes later each night, until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time The 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax involves the type of people I have no interest in and consider a nuisance,the politics of hoaxes are irritating insofar as pretension is always at the bottom of them,the Sokal hoax being a miniscule version of what you and the rest do here day in and day out.The scientific hoax of Piltdown man is more appriopriate insofar as it involves pieces that do not fit together which is why the 'sidereal vs solar time hoax ;' as an expression of planetary dynamics is so destructive however this requires people who can actually tell the difference.With astronomy almost extinct, it is proving difficult to find people,even with modern imaging tools,to deal with the matter in a serious and responsible way.For example,you say the Equation of Time has nothing to do with the daily cycle just to avoid Newton's expression of the Equation of Time as absolute/ relative time and from there into supporting the inverted reference for daily rotation whereas I would just shrug and say it is simply not worth it.Too much imaging power and volume of data to try and squeeze into an astrological framework. > > >>>> You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see > > >>>> the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > worth it.Too much imaging power and volume of data to try and squeeze > into an astrological framework. Oh, "Solar Time, Sideral Time", a total hoax, was shot on a sound stage in Death Valley. That's old news. Haiku Jones > The 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax involves the type of people I > have no interest in and consider a nuisance... I think we all know just who the nuisance around here is... With astronomy almost extinct, it is > proving difficult to find people,even with modern imaging tools,to > deal with the matter in a serious and responsible way. Astronomy is alive and thriving from where I'm sitting, very exciting, and the only problem with modern images is that you have seriously misinterpreted most of them... For example,you > say the Equation of Time has nothing to do with the daily cycle just > to avoid Newton's expression of the Equation of Time as absolute/ > relative time and from there into supporting the inverted reference > for daily rotation whereas I would just shrug and say it is simply not > worth it.Too much imaging power and volume of data to try and squeeze > into an astrological framework. As always, if you don't understand frames of reference, you are sunk. Finished. Strike 3, you're out. I think Albert might have been talking about you here; “The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” - Albert Einstein “How little do they see what really is, who frame their hasty judgment upon that which seems.” - Daniel Webster \Paul A >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day >> Gerald--You should read this link you posted... you might learn >> something with a bit of disciplined study. Thanks you posting the >> link!- Hide quoted text - > The Wiki link was written by the trekkie who has the return of a > star (a legitimate timekeeping average) in 24 hours 3 minutes 56 > seconds - That's because any one of us can make the same measurement and see that it is true.... that's the beauty of science, it is repeatable, verifiable. > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day > >> Gerald--You should read this link you posted... you might learn [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and see that it is true.... that's the beauty of science, > it is repeatable, verifiable. How does an Iowa farm boy come to the conclusion that a star returns in 24 hours 3 minutes 56 seconds or 3 minutes 56 seconds later each night ! - "Because the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at any one place at midnight will be about four minutes later each night, until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time The response in the other thread is good enough to cover any outstanding issues as to the importance of the rotation of the Earth once in 24 hours and the reasons which lead to an emanate from that value is many different spheres of human knowledge,creativity and enjoyment. As I said,there has never been one dull day watching as humanity has adapted the flexibility of the timekeeping averages based on the 24 hour/360 degree kernal - http://www.grand-illusions.com/articles/longitude/page02.shtml I can allow Flamsteed his mistake that the apparent rotation of the stars would appear to have an explanation through planetary dynamics but the ins and outs of using a timekeeping average demonstrate otherwise in a dramatic way ,specifically the prohibition of inverted references for daily and orbital motions.You have courage to come here and state your view and I cannot,cannot complain about you Sam whereas others just make up whatever stories needed to obscure what is a very simple and basic fact.The worst are the cowards ,for suppression of dissent does not apply in this case as it amounts to outright intellectual vandalism,and while allowing that the vast majority with opt for the 'sidereal time' conclusion for daily rotation there has to be some people who know the correct reasoning which leads to the correct fact that the Earth rotates once in 24 hours. A Kentucky farm boy once wrote these words Sam - "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." Abraham Lincoln > there has to > be some people who know the correct reasoning which leads to the > correct fact that the Earth rotates once in 24 hours. But you yourself wrote that there is _no external reference_ for constant rotation in a 24 hour period. So it's only a timekeeping average. So how can _that_ be the "real" rotation of the Earth, if it's just a timekeeping average? There is no rule of planetary dynamics that says it's illegal, immoral, or even fattening, to consider the Earth's rotation from the viewpoint of the same frame of reference which we use to consider its orbit. And once we do that, we can see that the Earth's rotation is inherently a simple motion, one uniform according to mechanical clock time. And that's the only way we can do that; Earth's rotation can be simple and uniform if it takes 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds; if it averages to 24 hours, then it is complicated and irregular, and 24 hours is a timekeeping average only, and nothing more. John Savard > > there has to > > be some people who know the correct reasoning which leads to the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > John Savard As aways, Gerald, it comes down to frames of reference. If you don't understand frames, you are sunk. Period. End of discussion. You just don't know what you don't know, and to a greater degree than the rest of us. \Paul A > > > there has to > > > be some people who know the correct reasoning which leads to the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > As aways, Gerald, it comes down to frames of reference. It comes down to a simple question with the answer being that the Earth turns once in 24 hours,there is an enormous sprawling technical and historical platform supporting that magnificent fact . The analogy to the denial of men landing on the moon applies here with the frightening or heartbreaking situation where in all the years not one single person has affirmed that the Earth turns through 360 degrees in 24 hours,not just the magnificence of the achievement itself but all the creative and human inventiveness in that value. This goes beyond something where people should be ashamed of themselves for that assumes that there is a level of goodness to begin with and any history which demonstrates that the Earth turns at an Equatorial speed of 69 .17 miles every 4 minutes is good enough to settle the issue - http://www.grand-illusions.com/articles/longitude/page02.shtml Why this mass betrayal is not for me to answer even though I know the politics which support 'sidereal time' ,I do not know why,in over 6 or 7 years in this forum,not one single person affirmed the importance of this subject while importing a false and inverted references for daily and orbital motions.I repeat,if a person denies that men landed on the moon and all the achievement that went into that event,the denial of the timekeeping system of 24 hours and the daily cycle is many more times as significant . > If you don't understand frames, you are sunk. Period. End of > discussion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > \Paul A > This goes beyond something where people should be ashamed of > themselves for that assumes that there is a level of goodness to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.grand-illusions.com/articles/longitude/page02.shtml I suppose the part you liked was really here: http://www.grand-illusions.com/articles/longitude/page04.shtml It certainly is true that local time changes by one hour for every 15 degrees, or four minutes for every degree, of longitude. It doesn't change by one hour for every 15.041 degrees! So in 24 hours, local noon travels around the world by exactly 360 degrees, crossing the International Date Line once along the way, and it returns to where it started as noon of the next day. No argument there. The reason we don't accept the rest of your conclusions, though, is because you are the one making the very mistake you think we are making - getting a calendrical convenience mixed up with planetary dynamics. John Savard > there has to > be some people who know the correct reasoning which leads to the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the timekeeping system of 24 hours and the daily cycle is many more > times as significant . Feckwit, you are simply unteachable. No capacity for learning at all. I don't think you are an idiot, but it won't take much more to make me change my mind. What do you mean when you say "in all the years not one single person has affirmed that the Earth turns through 360 degrees in 24 hours". No matter how many times I and others tell you that everyone agrees that there are 24 hours and 360 degrees in a day, with respect to the sun, you still comes back and tells us that we are shameful astrologers and in general not good people. I've taught thousands of kids a lot about beginning astronomy, and this jerk makes me feel like a total failure. He is completely unteachable. What an a.shole. Go away and come back when you learn some manners, and maybe a little astronomy, of which you know almost less than nothing right now. Your total knowledge on the subject is about what your average college student in Astronomy 1 learns in a couple of weeks, at most, and you have no business telling anyone else on this forum anything about planetary dynamics. Your 'intuitive intelligence' has failed you miserably, because you are neither intuitive nor intelligent, and you display your ineptitude several times a day here. Don't look for too much in the way of further instruction from me, I think I'll stick to basic catcalls and derisive remarks from now on. Too bad, you could learn a lot here... > > there has to > > be some people who know the correct reasoning which leads to the [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You should take heart from another Paul who once fought to destroy Christianity but was just too intelligent to remain fighting for the stagnation and mediocrity into which individuals and institutions sometime lapse,it eventually happened with denominational Christianity and with science So what,you teach pupils the same mistake you were taught and it all gets perpetuated but there is no history of innovation or astronomy behind the mistake which can be traced to a definite beginning by Flamsteed.I do not plead with you or anyone else to do anything,a person who gets the satisfaction behind the adventures and endeavors of humanity is a reward in itself and there is no harm is not having the full details , taking a broad view of things or making a few minor mistakes here and there. http://dl.screenaustralia.gov.au/module/1318/ It begins with a simple fact that the Earth rotates through a full 24 901.5 mile circumference at the Equator in 24 hours and then you add detail to this such as the fact that the Earth does not rotation to noon in 24 hours,something you have great difficulty with.I could add about denying men landing on the moon as equivalent to the astronomical fact but you already know that by now. > It begins with a simple fact that the Earth rotates through a full 24 > 901.5 mile circumference at the Equator in 24 hours and then you add > detail to this such as the fact that the Earth does not rotation to > noon in 24 hours,something you have great difficulty with. One begins with the timekeeping average, and then goes on to the observed natural fact. And then stops? To continue, and explain the causes of the Equation of Time, one has to combine the Earth's rotation with the specifics of its orbit. And to do that, one needs to begin with a real, physical rotation of the Earth that is simpler than the natural noon cycle. We have this in the regular return of a star. The Earth is a very big, very heavy, ball of rock. As such, it is hard to make it spin faster, or slow down its spin. This can still happen, for example, due to tidal forces from the Moon's gravity, but it is not possible for it to speed up and slow down significantly over the course of a year on a regular basis. So if we snap pictures of the Sun on a clockwork basis, we may get an image with the shape of an analemma, but that is an "illusion", in the sense that the Sun does not wiggle, and the Earth's rotation doesn't wiggle either. All that we're seeing is the combination of the regular and uniform rotation of the Earth with the specifics - both in eccentricity (being an ellipse and not a circle) and axial orientation (usually considered a property of rotation instead of the orbit, but the location of the ecliptic is an orbital property, so I can grant you that) - of the Earth's orbit. As you yourself have noted, though, there is no external reference for a uniform by clockwork time rotation of the Earth with a period of 24 hours. Again, I can grant you that the distant stars move (but very slowly) and that they, in themselves, have nothing to do with orbital dynamics. But *the relationship between the direction of the Earth's axis and the plane of the Earth's orbit* - the "orbital specific" that causes the seasons and the Equation of Time - also defines a system of directions. Using that system of directions as a reference, the Earth rotates with a period that is uniform by clockwork time. Using the orbital specific, the period is 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.0905 seconds while if one used the distant stars instead, to get the period of the Earth's absolute rotation, it would be 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1005 seconse the difference of a hundredth of a second being due to the precession of the equinoxes. John Savard > > It begins with a simple fact that the Earth rotates through a full 24 > > 901.5 mile circumference at the Equator in 24 hours and then you add [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > John Savard Really pretty simple in concept, isn't it John? The details can drive you nuts, but the concept is simple. I apologize for my blast at you-know-who, but the guy is frustrating and arrogant beyond belief. \Paul A > Really pretty simple in concept, isn't it John? The details can drive > you nuts, but the concept is simple. > > I apologize for my blast at you-know-who, but the guy is frustrating > and arrogant beyond belief. Of course. It is, though, natural to be arrogant when you know you're right. He has gotten tired of replying to me. I'm hoping he still reads my posts, as I am continuing to adapt, and explain the truth in the language he himself uses, in hopes that understanding can somehow be reached. John Savard >> That's because any one of us can make the same measurement >> and see that it is true.... that's the beauty of science, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in 24 hours 3 minutes 56 seconds or 3 minutes 56 seconds later each > night ! - Between shelling corn and bailing hay, I studied mathematics, physics and astronomy. But what really clinched it for me was the successive occulations of Vega by the power line to the east of the farm house at intervals of 86,164.09 seconds. > >> That's because any one of us can make the same measurement > >> and see that it is true.... that's the beauty of science, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > occulations of Vega by the power line to the east of the farm house > at intervals of 86,164.09 seconds. Try a world globe,spin it through 360 degrees - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg Any individual who makes the smallest possible contribution in the effort to restore astronomy,and yes,even the promotion of the 'sidereal time value as a wonderful observational convenience based on timekeeping averages is acting out of goodness for the great heritage of the past and for future generations. I have done enough to emphasise that it is the reasoning behind the 24 hour/360 degree value rather than just an expression of a simple fact which constitutes the core distinctions between an astronomer and an astrologer as the tendency to fabricate observations to arrive at the 'sidereal time' value is nothing more or less than the same type of reasoning which denies a supreme achievement bound up in putting men of the surface of the moon.After 6 years of unrelenting hostility here and you can still give that value without fear of objection indicates just how severe the problem actually was. So Sam,it is Independence day in more ways than one,the end of a tragedy and the beginning of a human triumph. >>>> That's because any one of us can make the same measurement >>>> and see that it is true.... that's the beauty of science, >>>> it is repeatable, verifiable. >>> How does an Iowa farm boy come to the conclusion that a star returns >>> in 24 hours 3 minutes 56 seconds or 3 minutes 56 seconds later each >>> night ! - >> Between shelling corn and bailing hay, I studied mathematics, physics >> and astronomy. But what really clinched it for me was the successive >> occulations of Vega by the power line to the east of the farm house >> at intervals of 86,164.09 seconds. > > Try a world globe,spin it through 360 degrees - No different that the real earth spinning between successive stellar occultations. If you can't see that, Gerald, that is so sad. > > >> That's because any one of us can make the same measurement > > >> and see that it is true.... that's the beauty of science, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > So Sam,it is Independence day in more ways than one,the end of a > tragedy and the beginning of a human triumph. Try the world globe yourself. Point the north pole to a distant point simulating polaris. Now move the globe round an object representing the sun, keeping the pole aligned with the same point. Note that to keep looking at the sun thoughout an orbit you will have to turn 360 degrees relative to the globe's axis. This is the extra rotation which makes the siderial day less then the mean solar day. It's obvious that you have limited powers of imagination and visualisation or you wouldn't keep making the same mistakes. Try this demonstration several times until you understand. If you still have problems let someone else go through the simulation and explain it to you. On Jul 5, 12:29 am, Mike Collins <acridiniumes...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> That's because any one of us can make the same measurement > > > >> and see that it is true.... that's the beauty of science, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > to turn 360 degrees relative to the globe's axis. This is the extra > rotation which makes the siderial day less then the mean solar day. These are the inverted references for daily and orbital motion which have a definite beginning with Flamsteed and lead to the 'sidereal time' value which contains no information on planetary shape and rotation. The original references use daily rotation to noon, and orbital motion to the stellar background for the annual cycle and the average 24 hour day ,after the Equation of Time correction,acting to serve the principle of constant rotation- "Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation," http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html I can't imagine what must go through your head when this normal,simple process is explained by Huygens or by John Harrison,the multitude of websites which simply state that the Earth turns once in 24 hours,the actual tables with values which show the distance a latitude rotates in 4 minutes of clock time corresponding to an entire corcumference of the planet in 24 hours - http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html I do not mind if you believe in the 'sidereal time' value or the reasoning behind it which amounts to the flat Earth type reasoning that if a star returns using a timekeeping average then it must be the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees,the thing is so crude and destructive that I now have a bigger problem dealing with the idea that men can actually make an enormous effort to ignore the principles for the correct value and support this sidereal time vs solar time hoax. > It's obvious that you have limited powers of imagination and > visualisation or you wouldn't keep making the same mistakes. > Try this demonstration several times until you understand. If you > still have problems let someone else go through the simulation and > explain it to you. That the Earth turns as a fact and that it turns to the Sun along with its orbital motion generating the variations in natural noon is a fact.That daily rotation as an independent motion cannot be isolated is also a fact because the natural inequalities arise from the orbital motion of the Earth are reflected in the observation that no two rotations to natural noon are alike. The brilliant system whereby the average 24 hour day is developed out of the natural noon inequalities where the 24 hours of Sunday turn into the 24 hours of Monday and then into the 24 hours of Tuesday and go on continuously is the same wonderful convenience that incrementally subdues the orbital element which causes the natural noon inequalities thereby allowing daily rotation to exist as a constant.With modern imaging it is possible to observationally see how daily rotation and the specifics of orbital motion combine to create the observed noon inequalities that astronomers on Earth have known since antiquity. If you have that 'sidereal vs solar time' hoax established in your head it may be impossible to get it out because as an independent motion,spin a world globe and it will turn through 360 degrees where 1 hour of clock time represents 15 degrees of geographical separation organised around the rotational characteristics of the Earth.All you have to do is spin the globe,that is all - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg Tell me what answer you get in terms of time. <Usual rubbish deleted> Still stuck in your nightmare world where only mindlessly repeating the same old material can fill the lonely hours. Sadly you seem to lack the will to do anything about it - like answering questions asked of you or accepting that you might be wrong. All very sad. Martin Nicholson Daventry, UK On Jul 5, 9:35 am, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)" <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > <Usual rubbish deleted> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Martin Nicholson > Daventry, UK I'll tell you what, a world that can accept the conclusion such as the 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax will accept anything up to and including the crude conclusion that carbon dioxide is the sole indicator for global temperature variations. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg The only imperative is to spin the globe once representing daily rotation through 360 degrees as an independent fact.What you numbskulls try to do is explain the return of a star and not explain the rotation of the Earth which is based on the reference to natural noon. Yesterday I expanded on the rotational traits by taking notice of the effects experienced at different latitudes as a person moves from solar radiation into the orbital shadow,the rapid transit through the boundary at the Equator and the relatively slow motion at the geographical poles incorporated in the tables below - http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html There is no hope is appreciating this through the 'sidereal time' value for there is no correlation between time and geographical speed and distance organised around the rotational characteristics. http://books.google.com/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=memoirs+tra it&ei=vW5PSvqUA4qsywTZ-aTmAg In that indignant essay which begins on page 90 ,when astrologers got hold of the watch of John Harrison (an incredible achievement akin to an individual building many of the systems of a computer from scratch ),they did just about everything to mistreat the invention and the inventor,the most important watch ever built to determine position on the planet by making using of the correlation between time and distance and they couldn't do enough to diminish it. Sidereal time,based on timekeeping averages, is a genuine convenience but cannot be used to reference planetary dynamics and that is about as much as genuine astronomers need to know with the original references which lead to the 24 hour/360 degree fact kept separate. What teacher would not be proud to stand before pupils and teach them how a location at the Equator switches from daylight to darkness rapidly while the further North/South of the Equator a person lives the longer it takes to turn from daylight into darkness because the person at the Equator is moving at a supersonic speed of 69.17 miles every 4 minutes with the values diminishing towards the rotational poles - http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html > Sidereal time,based on timekeeping averages, is a genuine convenience > but cannot be used to reference planetary dynamics and that is about > as much as genuine astronomers need to know with the original > references which lead to the 24 hour/360 degree fact kept separate. Uniform time, such as is kept by pendulum clocks, is the basis on which all physical dynamics, planetary or otherwise, must rest. The Earth, being a heavy ball of rock, must rotate uniformly by this time scale. The 24 hour period is a timekeeping average of the length of the natural noon cycle. But before the length of the natural noon cycle can be averaged, it must be measured. So you need to have mechanical clocks before you can determine how fast to make them run to match the average length of the day. Uniform time is antecedent, not consequent. John Savard > Yesterday I expanded on the rotational traits by taking notice of the > effects experienced at different latitudes as a person moves from > solar radiation into the orbital shadow,the rapid transit through the > boundary at the Equator and the relatively slow motion at the > geographical poles incorporated in the tables below - What the heck does the surface speed of the planet at varying latitudes have to do with anything? It is only the angular velocity that carries any meaning. Any sphere that rotates at 15 degrees per hour will take 24 hours to complete a 360 rotation, whether it be the Earth or a beach ball, which, although it would have a REALLY slow mph speed at its equator, would nevertheless be rotating at exactly the same angular velocity as the Earth. It is your statements like this that show everyone just how little you really understand specifically about celestial mechanics and in general about astronomy. You are Nowhere Man. > Sidereal time,based on timekeeping averages, is a genuine convenience... Sidereal time is based on real-time observations and has nothing to do with averaging anything. You really are even more clueless than I thought. Every time you open your mouth you put your foot in it. An ancient poet wrote this just for you; “Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error” - Marcus Tullius Cicero \Paul A Will you idiots please desist from taunting the Feckwit! The [feigned] village idiot has no self control! One might have hoped for better from you! Enough! Let it lie! The game is never about who wins but about retaining some bleedin' dignity' when they count the body bags at the end. Dontcha just hate it when chemically augmented body builders start comparing their intellektjewel peckers? > Will you idiots please desist from taunting the Feckwit! > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Dontcha just hate it when chemically augmented body builders start > comparing their intellektjewel peckers? Well, OK.... but I reserve the right to supply an appropriate quote or 2 now and then... >Will you idiots please desist from taunting the Feckwit! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The game is never about who wins but about retaining some bleedin' >dignity' when they count the body bags at the end. I'm reminded of Vizzini... "Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a crank when dignity is on the line!" ...or something like that. -- Dave > I'm reminded of Vizzini... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Dave I prefer Margaret Thatcher's: "Let's starve them of the oxygen of publicity!" It backfired badly, of course, because the BBC gave Jerry Adams a wonderfully sympathetic voice-over which boosted the IRA no end. >> I'm reminded of Vizzini... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >It backfired badly, of course, because the BBC gave Jerry Adams a >wonderfully sympathetic voice-over which boosted the IRA no end. It does seem to be the way of journalism. It's not much different on this side of the pond. -- Dave > > Yesterday I expanded on the rotational traits by taking notice of the > > effects experienced at different latitudes as a person moves from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What the heck does the surface speed of the planet at varying > latitudes have to do with anything? The Equatorial Earth where 69.17 miles correlates to 1 degree of geographical separation also represents a rotational speed every 4 minutes and each latitudinal value ,based on the shape of the Earth and its rotational characteristics , represents the same relation between 24 hours and the 360 degree circumference for any given latitude - http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html The reason a person at the Equator experiences a rapid transition from daylight into darkness is due to that 69.17 per 4 minutes speed while a person at 60 degree latitude will experience a slow twilight as they rotate into the orbital shadow at a slower 34.67 miles every 4 minutes. Unlike the modified explanation for the seasons which actually is tough and can only be resolved by treating daily rotational and orbital dynamics and characteristics separately by realising the limitations of the human intellect in processing one motion and characteristic at a time this one is just lovely and in an era where air travel is the norm,there should be no difficulty in accepting the observed experience in the transition from daylight to darkness at different latitudes.It all depends on whether a person enjoys the normal fact that the Earth rotates 24 901.5 miles in 24 hours at the Equator or 24 hours through 360 degrees. I realise that none of you like astronomy or much else for that matter,it shows in the way you treat these little insights which are found nowhere on the internet or anywhere else for 'sidereal time' reasons. <Usual rubbish deleted> Still stuck in your nightmare world where only mindlessly repeating the same old material can fill the lonely hours. Sadly you seem to lack the will to do anything about it - like answering questions asked of you or accepting that you might be wrong. All very unfortunate. Martin Nicholson Daventry, UK On Jul 5, 8:16 pm, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)" <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > <Usual rubbish deleted> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Martin Nicholson > Daventry, UK I am sure it looks like a nightmare world for you but enjoying the effects of daily rotation for different latitudes in terms of the rapid or slow change from daylight to darkness is just one of those things which any teacher would take pride in teaching their pupils.That a teacher can give the speeds involved through the tables that are provided make it so easy to explain and enjoy. Most of you will see signs of green shoots sprout up around you even as you still retain the 'solar vs sidereal time' hoax but effectively it is the vibrant spirit of astronomy that has been suppressed for so long that will return through the imaging power of today and the technological tools which explain our experiences of the great astronomical cycles as humans.There was always going to be a time when I would watch something like this little insight wither immediately even though there is nothing offensive in it,just as a set of rotational speeds for varying latitudes that explains an effect based on the table which express daily rotation once in 24 hours.It will always be lovely for those who like astronomy but I never found anyone here who likes anything here. > > > Yesterday I expanded on the rotational traits by taking notice of the > > > effects experienced at different latitudes as a person moves from [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > found nowhere on the internet or anywhere else for 'sidereal time' > reasons. http://abstrusegoose.com/157 >It is your statements like this that show everyone just how little you >really understand specifically about celestial mechanics and in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You really are even more clueless than I thought. Every time you open >your mouth you put your foot in it. "oriel36", or "Gerald", (I don't know his full name) cannot be convinced using arguments about astronomy. You have to discuss the theology and possibly a little epistemology to show that a closed, circular view like his is really a very fruitless one. He does not accept science as a concept. The way science tests theories against observation, and against themselves in terms of consitency and simplicity is lost on him. He just keeps reasserting his faith. Note that he consistently refers to astrology, only rarely to astronomy. I have seen this phenomenon in several students, either fundamentalist secterial Christians or devout maoist leninists. They have to start with a "get real" in a very direct sense. Then their world normally collapse, and they have to rebuild their selves. Usually a long, agonising process. I have never seen any of these finish to a graduation, but many managed to find themselves productive work. Except in Law. They say that a really good lawyer has to go through this process in reverse, and replace reality with a legal framework. His "experiment" is the lawsuit. But that is a digression. >An ancient poet wrote this just for you; > >“Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error” >- Marcus Tullius Cicero This is what Galileo fought against. Blind faith that does not acknowledge the value of reality, nor even the existence of it, but stays put in a circular framework of ancient texts. Just like the name oriel suggests, with the associations to fibonacci numbers and inwardly closed series. -- mrr > This is what Galileo fought against. Blind faith that does not > acknowledge the value of reality, nor even the existence of it, but > stays put in a circular framework of ancient texts. Even in astronomical matters the ancient texts expose your wretched condition - " Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? " http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng &data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=38&division=div1 The constellations move with the seasons and the return of a star in any given constellation to the same meridian takes 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes,the only acceptable reference for the stellar background being the Earth's orbital motion through space. The great author of Job can still remind people and especially Christians,just how little they actually know and the great symphony of planetary dynamics ,the Sun and multiple influences which go into making existence possible and enjoyable .Astronomy was already thousands of years old when that author mentioned with pride his knowledge of the stars and constellations in context of the seasons while everyone here betrays astronomy for a silly inversion of references which tries to obliterate the seasonal motion of the Earth through space or the antecedent geostatic view of the seasonal motion of the constellations. > Just like the name oriel suggests, with the associations to fibonacci > numbers and inwardly closed series. > > -- mrr > I worked in Northern Norway which is why I know that the major input > for seasonal temperature variations is not inclination to solar > radiation based on 'tilt' but on the length of time a large > latitudinal area spends in solar radiation and in the orbital shadow... Well, sure, the northern latitudes get a lot more sunshine in the summer and a lot less sunshine in the winter, and this accounts for the seasonal temperature variations. Why do you suppose this is the case? Could it be that the northern hemisphere tilts towards the sun in the summer and away from it in the winter? This tilt is not variable, by the way, it just seems that way because the earth has moved halfway around in its orbit. Having worked in Northern Norway you certainly must have noticed that the sun was high in the sky in summer and low in the winter. Why, if I didn't know any better, I might think it was actually wandering around up there. If I mapped the spot in the sky where the sun was located each day at noon, after a year, what kind of pattern do you suppose would emerge on that map? Is the high summer sun and low winter sun in Norway some kind of hoax? It is too bad that you are so unteachable, there are a lot of really smart guys on this forum, and you have much to learn. "Give me a fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its own corrections. You can keep your sterile truth for yourself." ~Vilfredo Pareto \Paul A > You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see > the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Prepare to stay for six months so you can watch the sun "sink away" > as we head into winter. That's a great idea and well suited for demonstrating with a computer animation. Show the horizon with degree marks, moving slowly from right to left on the screen (north pole), while the sun remains centered on the screen at some elevation above the horizon, representing a date between the spring and autumn equinoxes. Start the animation with the sun at 0-deg azimuth or due north. The program would calculate how far to move the horizon for each compressed hour of animation time. At the end of 24-hrs. the sun would be located one degree to the right (east) of due north or 361-deg. of rotation. You could even add an algorithm and data for one yearly orbit and see how the sun's altitude above the horizon changes from one day to the next. At this time of year near the June solstice the daily change in altitude would hardly be noticeable but would increase to almost a degree per day near the equinoxes. > > You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see > > the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > June solstice the daily change in altitude would hardly be noticeable > but would increase to almost a degree per day near the equinoxes. It is a bad idea to use the Earth's rotational orientation as a description of apparent solar altitude variations over the annual orbit as the dynamic which causes the illusion is strictly a feature of orbital one. I am afraid I have to use this response to finish off a bit of housekeeping in the matter of the 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax and why it is a destructive hoax many times in magnitude larger than Piltdown man with the modifier that it only started out as a genuine mistake by Flamsteed,it became a significant hoax after people started to build on it - "The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further reconsideration. " http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html That is exactly what happened with the difference being that there is no authority in existence to set the astronomical hoax off against the actual references for daily and orbital motions yet that may change.People can do better and they are going to have to. > It is a bad idea to use the Earth's rotational orientation as a > description of apparent solar altitude variations over the annual > orbit as the dynamic which causes the illusion is strictly a feature > of orbital one. Well DUH!!! Of course the apparent solar altitude is strictly a feature of orbital dynamics, what do you think we have trying to tell you? Except, it isn't an illusion, and the sun really does vary in altitude over the course of a year because of the Earth's orbit. You never noticed this from Northern Norway??? \Paul A > > It is a bad idea to use the Earth's rotational orientation as a > > description of apparent solar altitude variations over the annual [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > \Paul A Look,the apparent variation of the Sun over the course of an annual orbit is an illusion just as apparent planetary retrogrades in another context are illusions and resolved by taking into account planetary dynamics ,the cause of the Sun's apparent variation is strictly arising from the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun and nothing to do with daily rotation or tilt.The answer is easy enough to come to by making planetary comparisons between Uranus and Earth . In any case,this is linked in with planetary dynamics,climate change and how global climate cannot be derived as an extension of weather.Not a chance of getting this up a running when there are two opposing astrological frameworks for planetary dynamics of 'sidereal vs solar time' on one side and a wandering 'analemma' Sun on the other,both equally vacuous and nonsensical. Maybe a genuine teacher can instruct his pupils that the Earth rotates 69.17 miles every 4 minutes at the Equator and the entire 24 901.5 miles in 24 hours where 1 degree of geographical separation equates to 4 minutes and 24 hours registers 360 degrees of rotation.The feeling of,being put on a different road of freedom and individuality,is the most amazing thing for those who take that first step - http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the_universe/uts/earth2.html&edu=high > Look,the apparent variation of the Sun over the course of an annual > orbit is an illusion just as apparent planetary retrogrades in > another context are illusions and resolved by taking into account > planetary dynamics... OK, fine, the sun isn't really moving higher or lower in the sky, it just appears to do so over the course of the year, I think we can all agree with this statement. So? ,the cause of the Sun's apparent variation is > strictly arising from the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun and > nothing to do with daily rotation or tilt. Whoa there, Big Guy, the angle between the earth's axis and the axis normal to the plane of the ecliptic is EXACTLY what causes the sun to appear higher in northern summer and lower in northern winter, and we call this the tilt of the axis. Seasons have everything to do with tilt and revolution about the sun and, like you say, nothing to do with rotation about our axis. It is not a variable axis WRT to the fixed stars, at least within the limits of our lifetimes, but is certainly is variable WRT to sun over the course of a year. >The answer is easy enough to > come to by making planetary comparisons between Uranus and Earth . Forget about the comparison between the Earth and Uranus for now, your misinterpretation of the photos is just confusing you no end > In any case,this is linked in with planetary dynamics,climate change > and how global climate cannot be derived as an extension of > weather.Not a chance of getting this up a running when there are two > opposing astrological frameworks for planetary dynamics of 'sidereal > vs solar time' on one side and a wandering 'analemma' Sun on the > other,both equally vacuous and nonsensical. The sidereal and solar concepts are not opposing astrological frameworks at all, they coexist just fine, from the proper perspective, of course. Too bad you remain unteachable, you could learn a lot here. Study this some more, ... http://www.gardendigest.com/images/methods2.gif ... work on the scientific method for a while, and give up on the faith-based crap. \Paul A >You could even add an algorithm >and data for one yearly orbit and see how the sun's altitude above the >horizon changes from one day to the next. At this time of year near the >June solstice the daily change in altitude would hardly be noticeable >but would increase to almost a degree per day near the equinoxes. I'm planning to do that to create the analemma by superimposing successive images of the Sun as viewed from the Earth. Can't do it without elliptical orbits, though. Getting the right figure for the analemma would be a superb check that the animation correctly models reality. -- Dave > I'm planning to do that to create the analemma by superimposing > successive images of the Sun as viewed from the Earth. > > Can't do it without elliptical orbits, though. Just to make sure that we understand fully, if you DID run the simulation using a circle instead of an ellipse, you would just get a straight line, right? It is the slowing down and speeding up of the Earth as it travels along its orbit that stretches the analemma a little left and right as it goes up and down that creates the figure-8. I think I have this right... "To teach is to learn twice." - Joseph Joubert, French essayist \Paul A > Just to make sure that we understand fully, if you DID run the > simulation using a circle instead of an ellipse, you would just get a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I think I have this right... The going left and right is due to the Equation of Time. Part of that is caused by the Earth's elliptical orbit. But another part is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis, the same way as the seasons are. That is the part that makes the analemma look like a figure-8 instead of just an oval. My page at http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm explains how the two factors going into the Equation of Time work together. John Savard >> Just to make sure that we understand fully, if you DID run the >> simulation using a circle instead of an ellipse, you would just get a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >way as the seasons are. That is the part that makes the analemma look >like a figure-8 instead of just an oval. Yep, good point! And then you get another case where the effect of orbit eccentricity exceeds the effect of axial tilt to the point where one of the lobes no longer exists at all, like Mars. The Mars analemma looks loosely like a drop of water. -- Dave >> I'm planning to do that to create the analemma by superimposing >> successive images of the Sun as viewed from the Earth. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >simulation using a circle instead of an ellipse, you would just get a >straight line, right? Yes, a straight vertical line. >It is the slowing down and speeding up of the >Earth as it travels along its orbit that stretches the analemma a >little left and right as it goes up and down that creates the >figure-8. Yep, exactly. The real analemma is also skewed very slightly counterclockwise. Assuming photos taken at local noon, it'd be a perfectly vertical figure eight if perhihelion and aphelion (the apsides) occurred on the solstices. Right now, the apsides lag the solistices by almost two weeks. In 1250 AD or so, they coincided; but, general and anomalistic precession have rotated the solstices and the apsides about 13° apart since then. ...which makes me wonder what the analemma will look like in 5,200 years when they're 90° apart. Hm. Good cause for an animation! My guess is that one half of the interior analemma curve trace will be vertical while the other half will be rotated about the point of intersection to its max deviation counterclockwise. >I think I have this right... > >"To teach is to learn twice." >- Joseph Joubert, French essayist Amen to that, brother! -- Dave <snip> > ...which makes me wonder what the analemma will look like in 5,200 > years when they're 90° apart. Hm. Good cause for an animation! My > guess is that one half of the interior analemma curve trace will be > vertical while the other half will be rotated about the point of > intersection to its max deviation counterclockwise. He doesn't depict the analemma _per se_, but in his _Mathematical Astronomy Morsels_ Jean Meeus graphs the Equation of Time at millennial intervals from -2000 to +5000 inclusive.  SignatureOdysseus ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Astronomy Morsels_ Jean Meeus graphs the Equation of Time at millennial >intervals from -2000 to +5000 inclusive. Thanks; looks like I have another book to buy. His "Astronomical Algorithms" was worth every penny. -- Dave >>>I'm planning to do that to create the analemma by superimposing >>>successive images of the Sun as viewed from the Earth. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > -- > Dave Here's some software for experimenting with the analemma. http://www.analemma.com/Pages/framesPage.html >>>> I'm planning to do that to create the analemma by superimposing >>>> successive images of the Sun as viewed from the Earth. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > http://www.analemma.com/Pages/framesPage.html That link didn't work right. Click on the 'other analemmas' on the 'introduction' homepage. >>> ...which makes me wonder what the analemma will look like in 5,200 >>> years when they're 90° apart. Hm. Good cause for an animation! My [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >That link didn't work right. Click on the 'other analemmas' on the >'introduction' homepage. Yep, foud it; thanks. So, the one component doesn't quite go purely vertical. Okay, I can live with that. Thanks for posting the link! -- Dave > >>>I'm planning to do that to create the analemma by superimposing > >>>successive images of the Sun as viewed from the Earth. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > http://www.analemma.com/Pages/framesPage.html The idea of a wandering 'analemma' Sun is so astronomically repugnant,even in its geostatic sense,that it defies astronomical observations going back to antiquity - " 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 This game of introducing and trying to explain a wandering Sun through planetary dynamics in the same celestial arena where the wandering nature of planetary retrogrades are explained by the Earth's orbital motion through space is another remarkable astrological low. What did humanity do to deserve people running amok in an astronomical heritage based on timekeeping averages ?. I can't expect anything other than the same nuisances who will reply and that is not the point,this is an extremely serious error that has implications far removed from the central issue of planetary dynamics.At least Harrison had a platform to contend with the astrologers but today there is none and people are going to have to create some platform or authority in order to provide a backdrop for these wild, unchallenged and speculative astrological concepts. > I welcome any of those websites which > show that if you turn a world globe once,you will turn 1 hour through > 15 degrees and 24 hours through 360 degrees - If you turn a world globe once, you will indeed turn it through 360 degrees. One of the specifics of the Earth's orbit around the Sun is that the Earth's rotational north pole is pointed towards Polaris all year long. So if you took one of those old-style world globes that is held by the poles from an arc having a scale of latitude on it, tilted by 23 1/2 degrees, and you carried it around a wastebasket to simulate its orbit, you would have to keep that spine pointed in the same direction all the time. So if you advance the globe a little less than one degree in a circle around the wastebasket to simulate one day's orbital motion, and you also spin the globe around on its base, you would have to rotate it that one extra degree to correspond to 24 hours. If you just rotate it by what seems to be a full circle, to the same orientation relative to its base, then you have only moved it by 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds' worth of rotation. John Savard >> Rotation of bodies, including the Earth has nothing to do with the >> equation of time. The Equation of time deals with the "solar day" and >> elliptical orbit of the earth about the sun.... totally independent >> of the measure of rotation of the earth. - Sam Wormley > >The Earth turns at 69.17 miles every 4 minutes at the Equator and You keep repeating this, even though it is wrong. Since noone else has corrected this, I will. The noon, sunset and the dawn does move, on average, 69.168 miles per 4 minutes. But in respect to intertia and stars it moves 69.358 miles per 4 minutes. Almost exactly a thousand feet more. Now I have said it. >turning with a slower speed towards the geographical poles,it is so >fundamental and enjoyable that I welcome any of those websites which [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >intuitive intelligence which balances the spirit of an individual with >the productive background of a nation. Let me get this right. You consider the notion that we want to be able to observe things by ourselves, or someone we trust, and to verify theories against those observations as indoctrination? Or have I misunderstood? >I don't appeal to you nor do I mind if you believe the 'sidereal time' >expresses daily rotation ,the great timekeeping system which links the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >with planetary dynamics and cast a brief gaze at the amazing wordplay >and astrological framework of the last century. So the 24-hour system is therefore an article of faith necessary to pass muster in your astrological cosmology? -- mrr > >The Earth turns at 69.17 miles every 4 minutes at the Equator and > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Now I have said it. Depending on the frame of reference, you are both right. If you ignore the fixed stars and only look at the sun's frame, oriel36 is correct. If you look at the bigger frame, Morton is certainly correct. That's because it is OK to look at just one frame or the other, as long as you are aware of them both. Unfortunately, oriel36 has a real problem even acknowledging any frame other than the Earth-Sun duo, and this severely limits his enjoyment of the hobby. He really doesn't understand that celestial mechanics can be, must be, considered from many points of view in order to have a chance of understanding the Way Things Really Are. "You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." - Mark Twain \Paul A > In article <9e2c11a4-75d1-46b5-9c47-22cc2ef6e...@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > -- mrr Here's what you do,get yourself to one of these globes - http://www.aboutromania.com/World2.gif Spin the globe 15 degrees and it will cover a distance representative of 1669.8 km at the Equator and 837 km for the same 15 degrees at 60 degree longitude representing that the Earth is a rotating sphere,If you rotate the globe through 360 degrees and back to where you started,you will discover that the circumferences and rotational speeds match where 1 degree equates to 4 minutes,15 degrees equates to 1 hour and 24 hours equate to 360 degrees - http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html You are a newbie and that is fine,the unrelenting hostility towards structural and timekeeping astronomy is well and truly noted as participants and lurkers do the equivalent of the 'moon hoax' on astronomy by the incredible ability to intentionally ignore the efforts and achievements based on the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours. > In article <9e2c11a4-75d1-46b5-9c47-22cc2ef6e...@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > -- mrr Here's what you do,get yourself to one of these globes - http://www.aboutromania.com/World2.gif Spin the globe 15 degrees and it will cover a distance representative of 1669.8 km at the Equator and 837 km for the same 15 degrees at 60 degree latitude representing that the Earth is a rotating sphere,If you rotate the globe through 360 degrees and back to where you started,you will discover that the circumferences and rotational speeds match where 1 degree equates to 4 minutes,15 degrees equates to 1 hour and 24 hours equate to 360 degrees in terms of distances travelled at the respective latitudes - http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html The unrelenting hostility towards structural and timekeeping astronomy is well and truly noted as participants and lurkers do the equivalent of the 'moon hoax' on astronomy by the incredible ability to intentionally ignore the efforts and achievements based on the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 24 hours.There are too many nuisances attaching themselves to the technical matters under discussion and it is not an exercise in convincing the astronomical equivalent of 'moon hoaxers' that the Earth turns once in 24 hours with all the history and technical details behind it. > > In article <9e2c11a4-75d1-46b5-9c47-22cc2ef6e...@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > equivalent of 'moon hoaxers' that the Earth turns once in 24 hours > with all the history and technical details behind it. Trying to teach Oriel36 anything is like trying to nail Jello to a tree, or herding cats, he must have a very short attention span, to say nothing of a very narrow perspective. "Reality is independent from perception." >"Reality is independent from perception." How do you know that? ;-) -- Dave > >"Reality is independent from perception." > > How do you know that? ;-) > -- > Dave Well... that's what I've been told.... but someone also once told me that I was gullible, and I believed them... ;>) \Paul >>>How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine >>>what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > no seasons then you must be prepared to accept the full description > based on variable axial/Equatorial orientation to the central Sun - No one is claiming that the orientation of the earth's axis varys with respect to the distant stars. It remains fixed towards Polaris. But it does vary in the way the axis is *presented* to the sun. This is caused solely by the earth's orbit of the sun and it produces all the effects which you enumerate (above), including the seasons. > "... the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a > variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever the character of the > season, it would remain identical and unchanged." Copernicus Assuming your quote of Copernicus is accurate, his only error was the wording in the phrase 'the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a variable inclination'. He was certainly smart enough to know that the axis remains fixed in space relative to the stars. He was trying to make the point that the axis does vary in how it would be seen during the course of an earth year by an observer located at the center of the solar system. > The modified explanation alters the conception of 'no seasons' to > Equatorial conditions hence the degree of rotational inclination above [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > caused by a daily rotational component such as 'tilt'.It is not the > difficult in this era when it is easy to make planetary comparisons. Again, no one claims that the seasons are caused by (in your words) "a daily rotational component such as 'tilt'". There is no such thing. There is however a relative tilt between the earth's rotational axis (fixed towards Polaris) and it's orbital plane around the sun. It is this relative tilt which changes how the axis presents itself to the sun as the earth orbits the sun. Thus the seasons. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.