Change in average global temperature from 1880 to 2014 - Nasa

On Monday, September 15, 2014 10:23:27 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Monday, September 15, 2014 5:50:59 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Interesting chart:





Why do you have multiple posts...responding to yourself?

Cause it's fun!

Uncafunbobby

On Monday, September 15, 2014 11:06:46 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:

Mira's tail, shown here,



http://astronomer.wpengine.netdna-cd.../mira-star.jpg

I think that this picture is photo-shopped, and, of course, it is entirely up to you to prove otherwise...

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:40:01 AM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:

What is wrong with this diagram I am cruelly forced to accept?

http://sureshemre.files.wordpress.co..._solar_day.gif

Absolutely nothing wrong with that graphic, it is a very clear explanation of a very simple concept.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:30:06 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2 wrote:

On Monday, September 15, 2014 10:23:27 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Monday, September 15, 2014 5:50:59 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Interesting chart:





Why do you have multiple posts...responding to yourself?

Cause it's fun!

Uncafunbobby

Not good enough for the AP groups on yahoo, eh?

--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:43:47 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message

...



On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:40:01 AM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:



What is wrong with this diagram I am cruelly forced to accept?



http://sureshemre.files.wordpress.co..._solar_day.gif



Absolutely nothing wrong with that graphic, it is a very clear explanation

of a very simple concept.



===============================================

You were the first in your kindergarten class to put your hand up and

shout out the answer when the teacher asked the kiddy in the desk next to

you, weren't you?

Wasn't "cruelly forced to accept" enough clue for you?

YES to both questions...

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 3:11:06 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message

...



On Monday, September 15, 2014 11:06:46 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:



Mira's tail, shown here,

http://astronomer.wpengine.netdna-cd.../mira-star.jpg



I think that this picture is photo-shopped, and, of course, it is entirely

up to you to prove otherwise...

================================================

You could be right, I cannot proved it was not photo-shopped.

Well, I don't think it was photo-shopped either, I was just jerking your chain because you were jerking mine.

I say it's a

mirage caused by light from the equatorial region emitted earlier than the

light from the poles, travelling slightly faster than light from the poles,

arriving at the same time. I say this because I believe stars are spherical

and it is what one would expect if the light has travelled for 400 years and

the star is rotating and translating. It is of course entirely up to you to

prove otherwise without saying the scientific community believes the tail is

real because Einstein said light is always propagated in empty space with a

definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the

emitting body without any proof and then wrote some ridiculous algebra that

you trust but do not understand.

Well, I don't think this theory has any validity, but that is just my own opinion, which is about as valuable as your own opinion...

Speed of Sirius in the frame of Astronaut =( 8.6 * gamma) / ( 8.605/gamma)

= 0.9994 * gamma^2

= 834.7c


This is just over-the-top out of bounds, and no comment on my part is needed. You can't possibly believe this yourself. It seems to me that the speed in the frame of the astronaut and the speed in the frame of Sirius would be essentially the same.

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 7:24:37 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:40:01 AM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:



What is wrong with this diagram I am cruelly forced to accept?



http://sureshemre.files.wordpress.co..._solar_day.gif



Absolutely nothing wrong with that graphic, it is a very clear explanation of a very simple concept.

It has all the clarity of seeing a skull in a coal vein with the difference being that this is taught through the schools presently while from next year they will change to an assertion conjured out of thin air -

"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours," says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA Goddard. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased by about 2.5 milliseconds." NASA

In a kind of academic free-for-all, they simply wipe away the 'solar vs sidereal' fiction and adopt an approach which already ditches external references for rotation and this is corrupt,a fraud or any other negative spin that can be put on that anti-inspirational nonsense.

First principles dictate that timekeeping emerged from a framework of external references which center around an additional day and rotation to keep rotations fixed very closely to the orbital points. Were the leap day/rotation omitted, the year based on constant 365 days/rotations would register as a seasonal drift based on the definition of a year as one circuit of the Earth around the Sun.

I can't imagine why anyone would ignore the external annual reference for the orbital circuit of the Earth and why it takes 4 annual circuits to nail down to a close approximation how many rotations comprise an orbital circuit. It is totally fun and within the reach of any high school student but does not involve circumpolar motion of the stars.

The temperature graph is a statement of daily rotation, all that is needed is a clear and concise explanation for why February 29th is required in terms of a rotation and,at the same time, the distance the Earth travels through space. Think you can handle that ?.

If not then give me the Equatorial speed of the Earth per hour.

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:24:47 AM UTC-7, oriel36 asked:

...give me the Equatorial speed of the Earth per hour.

With respect to what? In any case, this statistic is essentially meaningless and is almost useless in everyday life. The better question would be... "What is the angular speed of the Earth, with respect to (enter your choice here)".

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:37:28 AM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message

You were the first in your kindergarten class to put your hand up and



shout out the answer when the teacher asked the kiddy in the desk next to



you, weren't you?



Wasn't "cruelly forced to accept" enough clue for you?



YES to both questions...

============================================

So now you've been cruelly forced to accept Einstein was wrong but I don't

yet see your hand up...

John, you (or anyone else, for that matter) have never come close to showing that Einstein was wrong, and have had your hat handed to you umpteen times, over and over again, looking mathematically illiterate along the way. You can solve algebra just fine, you just can't set the problem up correctly to begin with, typical of some engineers. You can't give them coffee breaks because it takes too long to retrain them.

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:29:04 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:24:47 AM UTC-7, oriel36 asked:



...give me the Equatorial speed of the Earth per hour.



With respect to what? In any case, this statistic is essentially meaningless and is almost useless in everyday life.

In respect to every other latitudinal speed North or South of the Equator indicative of a round and rotating object where speeds diminish with latitude from a maximum circumference otherwise known as the Equator. The answer is,of course ,1037.5 miles per hour hence the Earth turns its 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours.



The better question would be... "What is the angular speed of the Earth, with respect to (enter your choice here)".

If there were genuine astronomers the discussion would be the uneven rotational gradient of the fluid interior from Equatorial to Polar latitudes and its influence on the evolution and motion of the surface crust.

Somehow people do know what is correct from what is not as they begin to enjoy the actual references which link daily and annual motions to timekeeping so that when the Egyptians once seen Sirius rise with the Sun one morning what they were actually seeing was the orbital motion of the Earth moving far enough in its orbital circuit so Sirius could be seen along the orbital plane -

"on account of the precession of the rising of the Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year " Canopus Decree

This is not just living history,these are first and working principles which refer rotations to days and years to orbital circuits. It only requires observers to follow the visual narratives to affirm why an extra day or rotation provides the necessary distance the Earth travels through space to keep rotations fixed to the orbital points of the Solstices or Equinoxes.

It is time to set aside the stargazer mantra and take up the responsibilities of an astronomer,not you necessarily but rather those who have a genuine affection for the celestial arena along with our motion and place in it.