During the middle of the Eocene, about 40 million years ago...

On 11/6/10 1:56 PM, oriel36 wrote:
What is it exactly that readers want ?.

Many wish you would quit inserting yourself into threads and spewing
nonsense that is clearly contradicted by observations, Gerald.

On Nov 6, 7:34*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/6/10 1:56 PM, oriel36 wrote:

What is it exactly that readers want ?.

* *Many wish you would quit inserting yourself into threads and spewing
* *nonsense that is clearly contradicted by observations, Gerald.

You don't want to explain the 24 hour rotation that is February 29th
and the attached day/night cycle to that rotation,it clearly tells you
that there are no more that a full 365 rotations in any orbital cycle
and that the accumulative 1461 rotations correspond to almost 4
orbital cycles,the intricate structure where the orbital cycle drifts
in increments of 6 hours through Mar 1st each non-leap year until the
extra day/night cycle of Feb 29th reigns in the fractional difference
accumulated each year.

The correct answer is that none of you want to know the most basic
astronomical cause and effect of all where 365 1/4 rotations each
orbital cycle (not calendar year) corresponds to 365 1/4 days.The
correct correspondence is not just a brilliant achievement inherited
from antiquity but also for this present generation who may no longer
face the stranglehold of people who would make this world a poorer
place every day if they could for no good reason.There is presently
no number to call,no authoritative group who can deal with an error of
this magnitude but at least you know where you stand in attempting to
split 365 1/4 rotations from 365 1/4 days by defying common sense in
introducing an extra rotation every year.

It is not a question of you being wrong,it is a valuation issue at the
moment,who values their intelligence enough to adapt to a system where
daily rotation corresponds with the day/night cycle once more.

On Nov 6, 6:51*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/6/10 12:42 PM, oriel36 wrote:

In an open forum that has many thousands of readers each day and
nobody will affirm that daily rotation is responsible for the day/
night cycle hence the major problems humanity faces is not climate or
any other perceived external threat but this huge problem.

* *There is a reason that nobody affirms you, Gerald. The earth has
* *to turn a bit more than 360° to line up with the noon sun. The
* *difference is one hole day per year. The Sun changes 360° in Right
* *Ascension during the course of a year.

* *366.242 rotations in 365.25 days.

Hey Sam,how many times does a star return to the same position 3
minutes 56 seconds earlier from Mar 1st 2010 until Feb 28th 2011,if
you come up with the answer 365 times you will be right for there are
365 midnights and any star checked at that time will return 3 minutes
56 seconds earlier without fail.You can lie to yourselves all you
want,and I have seen you do it,but an observation that just tags along
with days and dates of the calendar system cannot serve as cause and
effect and certainly not the fine reasoning where 365 1/4 rotations
corresponds to 365 1/4 days and subsequently why we experience day and
night.

While every single reference website gives a false value for daily
rotation insofar as there is no external reference for that
independent motion,the error only really surfaces by the addition of a
nonsensical 366 1/4 rotations which can be obliterated by what a 24
hour day/night cycle of Feb 29th does,no more and no less.

These things cannot wait,it is creating havoc where planetary dynamics
and terrestrial effects meet and right now astronomical doctorates are
needed to deal with this matter by insuring that now the unfortunate
conclusion is exposed or rather,the correct principles are outlined
through the 24 hour leap day rotation,astronomy can rebuild once more.

On 11/6/10 3:33 PM, oriel36 wrote:
Hey Sam,how many times does a star return to the same position 3
minutes 56 seconds earlier from...

366.24 rotations in one year (vernal equinox to vernal equinox).

On Nov 6, 9:33*pm, Professoriel Feckwit shed his light on modern
astronomy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnH2pgtt7_I

On Nov 6, 8:49*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/6/10 3:33 PM, oriel36 wrote:

Hey Sam,how many times does a star return to the same position 3
minutes 56 seconds earlier from...

* *366.24 rotations in one year (vernal equinox to vernal equinox).

Ah,who has the will to live as opposed to the temptation to lie and
that is the mark of a human being and their worth ?.It is love of
nature and the celestial arena that always has drawn observers to
comprehend,as far as they may,the connection between an individual
life and the greater life that encompasses it,for me it is a facet of
my Christian faith.So what if one man made a silly mistake and drew a
particularly bad conclusion,the very existence of the day/night cycle
of Feb 29th and the 24 hour rotation eases understanding of the
averaging process which uses rotation to natural noon and the 365 full
rotations in one orbital year.

It is when readers shift attention to the current cycle stretching
from Mar 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012 that all things become clear and
it is an enjoyable experience putting all the pieces together where
365 1/4 rotations correspond to 365 1/4 days and 1 orbital cycle.You
are on the wrong side of an astronomical argument for while it would
have been perfectly acceptable to keep the Ra/Dec framework as an
extension and convenience of the calendar system thereby showing
yourselves to be astronomers,it looks like you are going to struggle
on defending a conclusion of a single guy in the late 17th century.

On Nov 6, 1:07*pm, oriel36 wrote:

The correct answer is that none of you want to know the most basic
astronomical cause and effect of all where 365 1/4 rotations each
orbital cycle (not calendar year) corresponds to 365 1/4 days.

Sorry, that's only correct WRT the sun. Your limited partial view is
your downfall.

The real correct answer, which you cannot understand because you are a
quack, is that there is more than one perspective, and when measured
WRT the fixed stars, well, things are observationally different. Tough
for you, but that's reality. Why don't you read something written a
little more recent than 2 or 3 hundred years ago?

Every time you open your mouth your foot gets lodged a little more
deeply there. It is entertaining watching you self-destruct, keep up
the good work.

"I know my theory is right, without wasting my time learning the
accepted theories."
- Another phrase that could have been uttered by Oriel36

\Paul A

On Nov 6, 2:07*pm, oriel36 wrote:

You don't want to explain the 24 hour rotation that is February 29th
and the attached day/night cycle to that rotation,it clearly tells you
that there are no more that a full 365 rotations in any orbital cycle

You don't want to explain why an additional day/night cycle that is
February 29th wouldn't work just as well if we didn't attach the
Earth's rotations to it, but instead attached the Earh's rotations to
stellar circumpolar motion.

John Savard

I just saw this article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1109095322.htm

which, at first glance, seems to indicate we're all doomed.

To avoid bad consequences from global warming, we need to stop burning
oil _before_ we run out of it.

If we're going to run out of oil 90 years before we have other sources
of energy... obviously that won't happen. And so we'll be in the worst
of both worlds - bearing the full brunt of global warming, *and* being
short of energy.

However, the article spoke of replacing oil with "renewable" energy.
Which, of course, means that it didn't look at replacing oil with
nuclear power. We don't have fusion power. But we _do_ have fission
power. We can extend the fuel supply for fission power considerably
with breeder reactors. A further extension is possible with the
thorium breeder, which, unlike fusion power, really is just an
engineering problem. This would significantly extend fuel supplies
even only considering conventional sources of thorium.

From an energy standpoint, it is theoretically possible to eventually
make use of the thorium contained in trace quantities in common rocks
like granite; this would allow the thorium breeder to approach fusion
power as a long-term energy source.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
|I just saw this article:
|
| http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1109095322.htm
|
| which, at first glance, seems to indicate we're all doomed.
|
| To avoid bad consequences from global warming, we need to stop burning
| oil _before_ we run out of it.
|
| If we're going to run out of oil 90 years before we have other sources
| of energy... obviously that won't happen. And so we'll be in the worst
| of both worlds - bearing the full brunt of global warming, *and* being
| short of energy.

Woe, woe and thrice woe, we've run out of mammoth. Whatever shall we do with
a such world-wide shortage of ivory tusks and mammoth steaks? We are doomed
to starvation and the price of piano keys will go through the roof, no more
piano music because there will be no more pianos. Our descendents will be
walking around alone, forced to carry tiny little MP3 players in their ears,
listening in solitude to music only they can hear instead of being joyfully
dragged into a pub to join ribald revelry and punch-ups to the delightful
tinkle of honky-tonk, destroying society as we know it. Doom, doom...