Oriel36 - I am very disappointed!

I am disappointed that you have reverted being abusive when
interacting with people who query the validity of your views.

Elements of what you say appear to me to be incorrect and what is
needed from you are clear answers to the questions people have asked
of you. For example you wrote:

“I have observations showing that 'axial tilt' is not the cause of the
seasonal variations in daylight and darkness.”

“At the Equator of Uranus there are no seasonal variations in daylight/
darkness just as on Earth”

How do explain the changing position of sunrise and sunset throughout
the year? Even at the equator there is a 46+ degree change in this.

How do you explain the changing maximum height that the sun reaches
above the horizon throughout the year. Such changes can be observed
regardless of latitude.

How do you explain the situation that occurs in December when at the
same time the sun doesn’t rise above the horizon in the north polar
regions while the south polar regions have 24 hours of daylight..

How do you explain that northern hemisphere summer happens at the same
time as southern hemisphere winter?


As far as I am aware the earths tilt is the only explanation for all
of these. Prove me and the rest of your audience wrong.

--
Martin Nicholson - Daventry, UK
http://www.martin-nicholson.info/index.htm
Dealing with John Greaves FAQ
http://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster/index.htm

On Nov 9, 11:31*am, ukastronomy
wrote:
I am disappointed that you have reverted being abusive when
interacting with people who query the validity of your views.




Why are you disappointed,is the Hubble time lapse footage not
enough ? and if it is not enough then nobody can help you or your
colleagues -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

You can see two 360 degree motions intrinsic to the planet occuring
with respect to the central Sun with orbital motion inferred therefore
what more do you need apart from the plain and simple explanation I
added.If you don't like the explanation then go fuigure it out
yourself because interpreting the motions of the Equatorial ring with
respect to the central Sun,as an orbital component is simply looked at
and then acknowledged as a matter of course.No point in blurting out
'tilt' at me as if that is going to make the motion go away.


Elements of what you say appear to me to be incorrect and what is
needed from you are clear answers to the questions people have asked
of you. For example you wrote:

“I have observations showing that 'axial tilt' is not the cause of the
seasonal variations in daylight and darkness.”

“At the Equator of Uranus there are no seasonal variations in daylight/
darkness just as on Earth”

How do explain the changing position of sunrise and sunset throughout
the year? Even at the equator there is a 46+ degree change in this.

How do you explain the changing maximum height that the sun reaches
above the horizon throughout the year. Such changes can be observed
regardless of latitude.

How do you explain the situation that occurs in December when at the
same time the sun doesn’t rise above the horizon in the north polar
regions while the south polar regions have 24 hours of daylight..

How do you explain that northern hemisphere summer happens at the same
time as southern hemisphere winter?

As far as I am aware the earths tilt is the only explanation for all
of these. Prove me and the rest of your audience wrong.

--
Martin Nicholson - Daventry, UKhttp://www.martin-nicholson.info/index.htm
Dealing with John Greaves FAQhttp://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster/index.htm

What I doing is referencing two 360 degree motions with respect to the
central Sun with both motions intrinsic to the planet,where the actual
change in an orbital location slowly through 360 degrees can be
observationaly observed,again,observationally observed .

All these guys here are stuck back in the late 17th century where the
Earth keeps the same orbital face to the Sun by justifying the motions
of the Earth to an imaginary celestial sphere instead of to the Sun
and to daily rotation and rotational orientation -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ecliptic_path.jpg

Disappointed indeed !,I wish I could get somebody to grow up and
handle modern imaging like men instead of irritating numbskulls who
think playing with words will make a difference and who,using images
like that one above,manage to believe that there is an external
reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

You want a 24 hour natural noon,you want the Earth to tilt up and
down against the Sun,you wanrt me to descend to geocentric terms of
sunrise/sunset and God knows what else but I stand perfectly correct
in determining what geometrically works and what does not .The
instituions you may represent still have to get around to explaining
basic things like why there is no external reference for daily
rotation through 360 degrees (and why it certainly is not 23 hours 56
minutes...) or seasonal variations in daylight/darkness.Until then
astronomy does not exist as a discipline other than a nighttime
magnification exercise and devoid of all substance instead of being at
the center of things.

If you want your work to be taken seriously then you need to be able
to show how it explains observations that can, and have, been made by
other observers. I gave you a list of four such observations just to
get things started (all can be explained by my belief in axial tilt) -
and readers will not have failed to notice that are unable or
unwilling to respond to any of them!


So, trying again.

How do explain the changing position of sunrise and sunset throughout
the year? Even at the equator there is a 46+ degree change in this.

How do you explain the changing maximum height that the sun reaches
above the horizon throughout the year. Such changes can be observed
regardless of latitude.

How do you explain the situation that occurs in December when at the
same time the sun doesn’t rise above the horizon in the north polar
regions while the south polar regions have 24 hours of daylight..

How do you explain that northern hemisphere summer happens at the
same
time as southern hemisphere winter?

--
Martin Nicholson - Daventry, UK
http://www.martin-nicholson.info/index.htm
Dealing with John Greaves FAQ
http://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster/index.htm

On Nov 9, 6:47 am, oriel36 wrote:

manage to believe that there is an external
reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees -

No, I don't. There is an external reference for rotation every 23
hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds through 360 degrees by the Earth.

There is the Earth's second motion around the Sun, which takes place
once a year, but which is not in a perfect circle.

You want a 24 hour natural noon,

Those two motions combine to yield a natural meridian crossing of the
Sun which only *averages* to 24 hours over the course of a whole year,
and they yield the Equation of Time.

you want the Earth to tilt up and
down against the Sun,

The axis of the Earth's rotation points always in the same direction,
near the direction that the star Polaris is from the Sun.

Since this axis is not *perpendicular* to the plane of the Ecliptic,
and the Earth orbits around the Sun, this *unchanging* direction of
the axis still presents different parts of the Earth to the Sun when
the Earth is on opposite sides of the Sun.

This is what we mean when we speak of the "tilt" of the Earth's axis
causing the seasons, not any wobbling back and forth of the Earth.

Of course, if I cannot convince you that you misrepresent and
misunderstand the conventional astronomical view... then _of course_
you will maintain - *quite legitimately* - that the view you
understand us to hold is false, and even ludicrous. But it is not what
conventional astronomers really believe, it is only what you
mistakenly attribute to them.

John Savard

On Nov 9, 3:14*pm, ukastronomy
wrote:
If you want your work to be taken seriously then you need to be able
to show how it explains observations that can, and have, been made by
other observers.

Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder and I do not make myself
the final authority as to the required modification based on replacing
the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial/equatorial tilt with an orbital
component,specifically an intrinsic 360 degree motion of the planet
with respect to the central Sun,I leave the authority to the actual
time lapse footage against which all interpretations are gauged -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

I have already issued a summary on the importance of rotational
orientation as regards to the experiences of daylight/darkness
symmetry over the course of an annual orbit,whether a planet
experiences polar-like qualities like Uranus or Equatorial -like
qualities as the Earth does but in of itself,rotational orientation
(tilt) is simply a product of daily rotation and does nothing else.


I gave you a list of four such observations just to
get things started (all can be explained by my belief in axial tilt) -
and readers will not have failed to notice that are unable or
unwilling to respond to any of them!

So, trying again.

How do explain the changing position of sunrise and sunset throughout
the year? Even at the equator there is a 46+ degree change in this.


Sunrise and Sunset are geocentric terms whereas I am working off a
template of actual motions of the Earth as seen from space -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTrYVBcx9s

I especially enjoy what occurs between Solstice and Equinox whereas
the 'axial tilt' guys tend to jump past the Equinox in order to show
the hemispheres 'tilt' towards and away from the Sun at the
solstices .So you want an answer to your geocentric question and that
is a nuisance for me as I am eager to find people who actually like a
moving Earth and the specifics behind those motions,I will even resort
to the empirical love of 'definitions' to demonstrate why two dual
motions are needed instead of blurting out 'axial tilt'.

The word 'intrinsic'plays an important role as can be seen in the
Uranus images -

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intrinsic

The Earth and every other planet has two intrinsic 360degree motions
with respect to the central Sun,one is daily rotation and the other is
a specific turning arising from the orbital motion of a planet.


You are working off variable axial inclination to account for apparent
variations in solar altitude over the course of a year but what you
are actually doing is combining two motions into one where the arc of
the Sun due to daily rotation and the separate slow orbital turning
(in the opposite direction)combine to generate apparent altitude
differences,the differences are non existent at the Equator and
extreme at the poles.

The actual explanation is to split daily rotation from orbital motion
and isolate the specifics of orbital motion and that is where the 21st
century imaging of Uranus comes in.It obviates the need for relying on
'axial tilt' and introduces an orbital specific to resolve the
difficulty in keeping rotational orientation pointing in one direction
in space while allowing apparent seasonal latitudinal variations in
the altitude of the Sun diminishing to nothing at the Equator.








How do you explain the changing maximum height that the sun reaches
above the horizon throughout the year. Such changes can be observed
regardless of latitude.


Go ahead,explain why the seasonal hemispherical differences split at
the Equator while keeping the rotational orientation fixed in space
and at the same time,extreme variations in inclination are observed
at either poles.I simply look at daily rotation and the orbital change
to resolve the issue with 100% geometric certainty but perhaps you
want to remain with your hemispherical outlook instead of the global
solution


How do you explain the situation that occurs in December when at the
same time the sun doesn’t rise above the horizon in the north polar
regions while the south polar regions have 24 hours of daylight..


The intrinsic orbital motion of the Earth brings the polar regions
into complete darkness as can be seen from the limited view of the
Earth's motions.I am sure a participant here can see the circle of
illumination pivot off the Equator denoting the orbital component
which can be best viewed at the great distance on the planet Uranus.

A person at the Equator abruptly experiences a sudden change from
daylight to darkness as his location swings from direct solar
radiation into the orbital shadow whereas his Northern counterpart
experiences a long twilight denoting variations in rotational speeds
as latitudinal locations.These factor combine to generate latitudinal
specifics for both daily rotation and the orbital specifics and it is
fine if all you can manage is to exclaim 'axial tilt'.to my ears it
now sounds like 'ribbet,ribbet!"


How do you explain that northern hemisphere summer happens at the
same
time as southern hemisphere winter?


Two dual 360 degree motions with respect to the Sun with the orbital
component an intrinsic motion over and above orbital motion around the
central Sun.


--
Martin Nicholson - Daventry, UKhttp://www.martin-nicholson.info/index.htm
Dealing with John Greaves FAQhttp://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster/index.htm

I asked you to explain the changing maximum height that the sun
reaches above the horizon throughout the year. Such changes can
observed regardless of latitude.


You wrote “… combine to generate apparent altitude differences, the
differences are non existent at the Equator and extreme at the poles.”


I’m sorry but what you have written is wrong. At the equator the
highest point the sun can reach does vary – it varies from 90 degrees
above the horizon (sun directly overhead at its highest point) to
about 66.5 degrees above the horizon.

So …. – unless you can explain and/or correct the error you have made
the rest of your theory must fall.

--
Martin Nicholson - Daventry, UK
http://www.martin-nicholson.info/index.htm
Dealing with John Greaves FAQ
http://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster/index.htm

On Nov 10, 2:51 am, ukastronomy
wrote:
I asked you to explain the changing maximum height that the sun
reaches above the horizon throughout the year. Such changes can
observed regardless of latitude.

I'm not sure that he has a theory that can fail.

A lot of what he is saying is even sort of right.

He is right in saying that the Earth doesn't bob back and forth over
the course of a year, that it doesn't have a variable axial
inclination.

He is right in saying that the seasons are the result of two motions
of the Earth - one of these is the Earth's rotation on its axis, the
other is its annual revolution around the Sun.

Where he is horribly, horribly wrong is:

- in not accepting that the seasons are the result of the Earth's
_fixed_ axial orientation, not strictly perpendicular to the ecliptic,
and the Earth being on either one side of the Sun or the other over
the course of the year;

- in not accepting that the period of the Earth's rotation on its axis
is 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

What he has never stated - what he positively *refuses* to state
openly - is just what he thinks the Solar System is doing instead of
what everyone else knows it is doing.

It appears to me that he has misunderstood what Newton has written,
and what conventional modern astronomy has claimed. As a result, he
believes Newton, and today's astronomers following him, include in
their picture of the Solar System certain elements which are
_genuinely_ physically absurd.

Because he is fixed in his views, and because he positively refuses to
enter into debate concerning the logical consequences of his previous
statements, and he is uncomfortable with mathematics, it is very
difficult to make progress toward either resolving his
misunderstanding, or even to find out precisely what his criticisms of
modern astronomy are.

In his opinion, we should just be able to *look* at those photographs
of the seasonal cycle of Uranus, or read the original words of Kepler
and Huyghens, and see the truth ourselves, just as he does.

I'm afraid that a memorable phrase by Enrico Fermi applies; he is not
_even_ wrong.

John Savard

On Nov 10, 10:51*am, ukastronomy
wrote:
I asked you to explain the changing maximum height that the sun
reaches above the horizon throughout the year. Such changes can
observed regardless of latitude.


Did you just say regardless of latitude !!!!,listen Martin,maybe
inside that head of yours there is a tiny inkling that seasonal
daylight/darkness variations split at the Equator (0 Degree
Latitude),that rotational orientation remains fixed in space therefore
if at the end you will blurt out 'axial tilt' then good for you but I
do not want to hear it.I actually require serious people to deal with
an exciting and productive matter.

What can I do but repeat the actual observation,do you clearly
understand the word 'observed',can be seen,can be witnessed ,looked
at,watched,viewed where there are dual 360 degree motions needed to
explain the variations in altitude to the Sun -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b







You wrote “… combine to generate apparent altitude differences, the
differences are non existent at the Equator and extreme at the poles.”

I’m sorry but what you have written is wrong. At the equator the
highest point the sun can reach does vary – it varies from 90 degrees
above the horizon (sun directly overhead at its highest point) to
about 66.5 degrees above the horizon.

Do you ever get the feeling Martin that you are perfectly comfortable
with geocentricity and the motions of the Sun whereas I am working
with the motions of the Earth ?.If you know that no daylight/darkness
variations occur at the Equator and the seasonal variations split
there,a reasonable person looks to something other than 'axial tilt'
and by reasonable I mean the big institutions like NOAA.

I can't even begin to imagine what the opposition is to the 360 degree
motion which is intrinsic to a planet with respect to the Sun and an
extension of orbital motion,if there is some severe mental condition
that makes people no see the motion I could understand but not this
one and not with modern imaging -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg





So …. – unless you can explain and/or correct the error you have made
the rest of your theory must fall.


There is no theory,there are actual images which slow that rotational
orientation (tilt) only determines whether a planet experiences polar-
like or Equatorial like conditions but does not cause the seasons,that
dynamic is due to the specific motion a planet has with respect to the
central Sun.I can simply compare the seasonal variations between Earth
and Uranus and work away with dual 360 degree motions intrinsic to the
planet and leave you blurting out 'axial tilt'.

The thing is Martin I am not in the slightest bit interested in your
'axial tilt' explanation which you believe causes the seasonal
daylight/darkness variations and the separate issue of the natural
noon cycle.I can give you reasons why the hypothesis of
Copernicus,based on variable axial/equatorial inclination fails but
that remains the conceptual benchmark against which this major
modification is being introduced -

"To this circle, which goes through the middle of the signs, and to
its plane, 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

The correct response is that rotational orientation,inclination or
tilt influences whether a planet has either equatorial -like or polar -
like seasonal attributes but does not cause the seasonal
variations,that dynamic belongs to orbital dynamics and the specific
way the Earth orbits the Sun.I would be highly surprised if a genuine
and capable person could not compare the seasonal variations between
Earth and Uranus to affirm this thereby accomplishing something useful
for a change.

So,anyone wish to try their hand at the new explanation a set aside
the pseudo-dynamic of'axial tilt' ?





--
Martin Nicholson - Daventry, UKhttp://www.martin-nicholson.info/index.htm
Dealing with John Greaves FAQhttp://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster/index.htm

On Nov 10, 6:52 am, oriel36 wrote:

So,anyone wish to try their hand at the new explanation a set aside
the pseudo-dynamic of'axial tilt' ?

There is no change in axial orientation. But there is a static axial
orientation which is not strictly perpendicular to the ecliptic.

So the motion of the Earth from one side of the Sun to the other
changes the relationship of the direction to the Sun to Earth's
equator and system of latitudes in general. No "new explanation" is
needed, *you* have misunderstood the old explanation to imply a false
changing axial orientation instead of the true fixed orientation -
combined with two motions, just as you say, but with the Earth's
rotation corresponding to 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds *from
the evidence of Kepler's square-cube law*, or by reference to the
slower-moving planets like Neptune, without a need for the fixed
stars.

John Savard

On Nov 10, 6:52 am, oriel36 wrote:

The correct response is that rotational orientation,inclination or
tilt influences whether a planet has either equatorial -like or polar -
like seasonal attributes but does not cause the seasonal
variations,that dynamic belongs to orbital dynamics and the specific
way the Earth orbits the Sun.I would be highly surprised if a genuine
and capable person could not compare the seasonal variations between
Earth and Uranus to affirm this thereby accomplishing something useful
for a change.

What you're saying here doesn't differ from what conventional
astronomers already believe, so they don't need to change a thing. No
"tilt" means fully "equatorial" seasonal attributes - no seasons. The
seasons are caused by a planet orbiting the Sun, moving 360 degrees in
a year, so as to bring the planet's axis into a different relation to
the Sun.

So in this respect, there is *no difference* between what you claim is
the case and what everyone else, including Newton, has been saying all
along.

John Savard