Mars Spectacular

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:48:24 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote:

Astronomy is based on objects in motion and especially the Earth's own motion around the central Sun, it is not based on forces,mass,momentum or any of the other jargon dumped into it by empiricists who themselves lack basic common sense and genuine mathematics anchored in geometry.

Students will go back to schools and colleges in a few weeks and they must be taught that the reason why 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness at the polar latitudes is caused by the Earth turning as it moves through space where it mixes with daily rotation at lower latitudes to cause the seasons. This is not a hypothesis or assertion,this is a 100% observational fact -

http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg

I am sorry if empiricists have mathematical disabilities,I truly do, however they must not stand in the way of students and adults who have the analytic capabilities to put those long term images in dynamical context and give humanity back the mathematics of geometry in motion. In the physics forum they scream at each other over misunderstanding of jargon while I come here and demonstrate how easily it is create and demonstrate visual narratives for meaningful insights and conclusions thereby dismantling contrived nonsense forced down the throat of humanity through the education system.

So,when one of you actually enjoy the cause behind the 6 month daylight/6 month darkness cycle at the North and South poles then you can call yourselves astronomers but not before then.

You give us buns, and have the nerve to call your meatless wonder a
"burger".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0
--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:07:10 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:48:24 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote:



Astronomy is based on objects in motion and especially the Earth's own motion around the central Sun, it is not based on forces,mass,momentum or any of the other jargon dumped into it by empiricists who themselves lack basic common sense and genuine mathematics anchored in geometry.



Students will go back to schools and colleges in a few weeks and they must be taught that the reason why 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness at the polar latitudes is caused by the Earth turning as it moves through space where it mixes with daily rotation at lower latitudes to cause the seasons. This is not a hypothesis or assertion,this is a 100% observational fact -



http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg



I am sorry if empiricists have mathematical disabilities,I truly do, however they must not stand in the way of students and adults who have the analytic capabilities to put those long term images in dynamical context and give humanity back the mathematics of geometry in motion. In the physics forum they scream at each other over misunderstanding of jargon while I come here and demonstrate how easily it is create and demonstrate visual narratives for meaningful insights and conclusions thereby dismantling contrived nonsense forced down the throat of humanity through the education system.



So,when one of you actually enjoy the cause behind the 6 month daylight/6 month darkness cycle at the North and South poles then you can call yourselves astronomers but not before then.



You give us buns, and have the nerve to call your meatless wonder a

"burger".


Here is your very expensive meatless burger -

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/seasons/en/

Before it becomes possible to answer the question as to what causes the seasons another simple question needs to be asked - What is the dynamic behind the 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness at the North/South poles ?. When that question is answered correctly,then and only then can the seasons be explained by introducing daily surface rotation to the Sun at lower latitudes.

Moving through space and around the Sun the Earth turns as it does so and all affirmed visually to a 100% certainty along with any analogy one cares to make -

http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg

This is pure enjoyment and so what if the academics or the opinionated will not put those images in context of a surface rotation nor the polar day/night cycle and on to a proper explanation for the seasons, the orbital surface rotation to the central Sun is here to stay and changes all ahead of it.

Finding a vehicle to host the new explanation is the only real difficulty so for the moment students still suffer those poor explanations from NASA and the like.

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:43:13 AM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:

Before it becomes possible to answer the question as to what causes the seasons
another simple question needs to be asked - What is the dynamic behind the 6
months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness at the North/South poles ?.

The Earth's orbit around the Sun.

Which changes the direction in which the Earth lies from the Sun, and hence the direction in which the Sun lies from the Earth, which is what you term a "second surface rotation".

John Savard

When will you lot learn that Gerald will never change his opinion on anything and that he will never answer questions on his crackpot views!

Do a Google search and you will soon find out that he has been finding suckers to play his game for years (including me) and there is nil difference between what he was saying 2004-2006 and now. All the "I'm sure I can get through to Gerald" people have done is waste their own time.

Gerald is, to all intents and purposes, a bot. Indeed there isn't that much proof that he isn't actually one!

In article ,
oriel36 wrote:
Why do you insist putting the 100% observational certainty of the
surface rotation of the Earth to the central Sun as a function of its
orbital motion through space in quotation marks ?.

Because I am comfortable with the more productive modern view that
partitions rotational motion from motion through space.

Pick up a broom representing not only rotation but the constant
orientation to Polaris as the Earth moves through space and around the
central Sun and tilt the broom 23 1/2 degrees from the line of your body
to imitate the Earth's surface feature. Walk around the object imitating
the Earth's motion through space while keeping the broom pointing
constantly to the same external point and you will discover that all
points of your body turn to that central object/Sun imitating the
surface rotation of all planets as they turn once to the Sun as a
function of their motion through space.

Now, aren't you the person who claims that we can't make analogies
from motions on the surface of the Earth to motions in space?
That watching an apple fall doesn't tell us anything about planets
and the moon? How then can you ask me to do this walking and
then move from that to the Earth and the Sun?

In any event, in your own example here, I'm not the Earth. I'm
gravity. The broom is the Earth, and the broom does not turn.

So you're saying here that the Earth has a rotational motion as
it orbits the Sun. So then does the Moon have one as it orbits
the Earth? I thought the whole point here was that the Moon doesn't
rotate, and so presents one face to the Earth, but the Earth doesn't
present one face to the Sun, and therefore must have a rotation
to explain this.

It seems to me that you're being inconsistent -- not with celestial
mechanics as generally presented, that's a given, but with your
own framework.

--
David Goldfarb | "It's not called 'The Net of a Million Lies'
| for nothing."
| -- Vernor Vinge, _A Fire Upon the Deep_

wrote:
When will you lot learn that Gerald will never change his opinion on
anything and that he will never answer questions on his crackpot views!

Do a Google search and you will soon find out that he has been finding
suckers to play his game for years (including me) and there is nil
difference between what he was saying 2004-2006 and now. All the "I'm
sure I can get through to Gerald" people have done is waste their own time.

Gerald is, to all intents and purposes, a bot. Indeed there isn't that
much proof that he isn't actually one!

1 You're still playing his game.

2. The most futile kind of post on usenet is the request that people stop
posting.

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:14:26 AM UTC+1, David Goldfarb wrote:
In article ,

oriel36 wrote:

Why do you insist putting the 100% observational certainty of the

surface rotation of the Earth to the central Sun as a function of its

orbital motion through space in quotation marks ?.



Because I am comfortable with the more productive modern view that

partitions rotational motion from motion through space.



Pick up a broom representing not only rotation but the constant

orientation to Polaris as the Earth moves through space and around the

central Sun and tilt the broom 23 1/2 degrees from the line of your body

to imitate the Earth's surface feature. Walk around the object imitating

the Earth's motion through space while keeping the broom pointing

constantly to the same external point and you will discover that all

points of your body turn to that central object/Sun imitating the

surface rotation of all planets as they turn once to the Sun as a

function of their motion through space.



Now, aren't you the person who claims that we can't make analogies

from motions on the surface of the Earth to motions in space?


The analogy is not only a simulation of the Earth surface rotation to the Sun as a function of its orbital motion,it is a direct imitation of an observation that is a 100% observational certainty.

http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg

Just because it is an achievement doesn't mean I can walk away from it as the necessity of recognizing that the orbital motion of the Earth through space does generate a surface rotation in addition to daily rotation and quite separate to it requires a reformatting of so many other things and especially what is now termed 'axial precession'.





That watching an apple fall doesn't tell us anything about planets

and the moon? How then can you ask me to do this walking and

then move from that to the Earth and the Sun?


A better analogy for planetary dynamics is using magnets but that is conjecture whereas nobody is asked to prove anything by walking around a central object in a specific way in imitation of planetary orbital motion and especially as it affirms what is already observed as a fact.





In any event, in your own example here, I'm not the Earth. I'm

gravity. The broom is the Earth, and the broom does not turn.



The broom represents constant axial orientation (to Polaris if you wish) thereby you discover the single surface rotation responsible for 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness at either poles.

http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg

This is beyond the need for proof,more about common sense than proof as a foundation for explaining the seasons at lower latitudes along with why noon cycles vary.

Since the issue about the Sun's apparent daily and annual arc is challenged as an observation and that doesn't even require a translation into planetary dynamics there is no longer a need to keep the explanation front and center as I previously once did.

As you traffic in science fiction signatures you are best left to your own devices,not that I have anything against science fiction but unfortunately as a group you can't make the distinction between fact and fiction.