Mars Spectacular

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:52:14 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 6:49:47 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

oriel36 wrote:



On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:21:20 AM UTC+1, David Goldfarb wrote:



In article ,







oriel36 wrote:







" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between







solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often







than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard















http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1904PA.....12..649B















And yet you yourself also have the Earth rotating upon its axis once







more often than there are days. You have the 365 daily solar rotations,







and you have the "second surface rotation", which completes once in







a year. Both of these are rotations, are they not? Both of them







are about the Earth's axis?















--







David Goldfarb |From the fortune cookie file:







|







|"Sell your ideas -- they are totally acceptable."







All planets have a surface rotation to the central Sun as a function of



their orbital motion where the North/South poles are a handy reference



for that surface rotation or in the case of Uranus,the motion of the



Equatorial rings also provide an affirmation that a planet turns once



completely to the Sun once in an annual circuit and coincident with its orbital plane -







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







Daily rotation is a separate motion hence it is used as a gauge for the



number of sunrises and sunsets inclusive of the annual circuits of the



Earth,in this case it takes 4 annual circuits to nail down that



proportion to the nearest rotation (with further refinements needed) or



February 29th closing out 4 annual circuits as the final rotation. It is



a completely different mindset which uses external references properly



and especially the ancient use of Sirius which determines that an extra



sunrise and sunset is applied after 4 years of 365 days to keep days



fixed to their annual points or in modern terms, the number of rotations



needed to return the Earth to the same position in space.







Of course this will mean nothing to those who can't or won't even



recognize the daily arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon or that



rotations and days always keep in step. After anchoring astronomy is the



few basic facts with visual narratives in support,it becomes possible to



go anywhere with astronomy after that but it must be a stable foundation



as opposed to what exists presently.







Show me the arc of the sun in this series:











https://picasaweb.google.com/1122531... noredirect=1



You do realize the arc of the Sun from horizon to horizon at lower

latitudes affirms that the Earth is actually round as it shortens towards

noon and lengthen towards nightfall -



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v;7KLstUZbI



In the Arctic regions in June when the Sun circles the horizon,it is due

to the surface rotation as a property of the orbital motion of the

Earth,a property which is presently taken up by precession -



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preces...precession.svg



All rotation is referenced towards the Equator hence nobody should have a

problem looking at rotation from the graphic above and seeing the Sun

circle the horizon for how else to explain the present arc of the Sun at

Hammerfest and at all latitudes as it has moved on from its Solstice position -



http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/norway/hammerfest



I know cultists in that you are unable to connect the daily arc of the

Sun with the fact that the Earth is round or even that the Sun's arc in

Hammerfest presently as the entire Arctic circle has turned away from the

Sun as a component of the planet's orbital motion thereby generating the

rise of the Sun from behind the local horizon and exiting the horizon in

the same arc as all lower latitudes.



Polaris is never between the Sun and the local horizon at noon at any

latitude and that is where you are getting your unnatural arcs at all latitudes from -



http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ole-sunset.htm



Do you really believe that, at mid latitudes, Polaris was lower than the

Sun at noon today ,between the Sun and the local horizon or the center of

its daily arc because that is what you unfortunate people are trying to

promote by giving the Sun an unnatural arc ?.



I have never seen so many actively fighting against the loveliest

observation in all astronomy as the Sun emerges from the horizon,arcs

across their view in a curve opposite to circumpolar motion and then

disappears beyond the local horizon. It requires observers to take two

hemispheres into account simultaneously including the seasonal

variations in arc between Northern and Southern hemispheres so as not to

place emphasis on which observer is 'upside down' but rather the focus on

the Earth is round and rotating while the Sun is central by looking at

the apparent motions towards the Equator.



I wouldn't ask you to show the arc for East Anglia least you find the

actual arc as beautiful as it actually is -



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmf8eMtM6dQ



Readers here would be surprised how often they show these images of

sunrise on tv yet here we have a celestial sphere bunch craving the Sun

apparent motion in an unnatural arc from horizon to horizon.



Looking south at noon from the northern hemisphere the arc of the sun is

part of a circle centred on the South Celestial pole.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ole-sunset.htm

Not only have empiricists the Sun circling Polaris each day in an unnatural circumpolar arc,they also vary the altitude of Polaris across latitudes to suit the observer and this destroys the ability to take a grandstand view of a round and rotating Earth and what causes the natural and familiar arcs of the Sun each day, what causes the day/night cycles, the seasonal variations in arc and so on.

It is not that you can hold two contradictory views simultaneously nor even that you can switch from one view to the other without the slightest discomfort, it is that your empiricist cult ideology demands that you do and the nearest thing to these demands was Nazi ideology -

"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

This present era is even worse than the dystopian world of Orwell insofar as even the apparent motion of the Sun in its daily arc is denied as an observation never mind as a fact and here we reach societal rock bottom with a ruling clique in control of the education system and dictating to the wider population what to and what not to believe.

This is not for people who can't change their minds insofar as basic facts and observations are always painful for those who live in their own celestial sphere imagination, this is for those who truly love sunrise and sunset as astronomical observations and know what it means in terms of the shape and motion of the planet with the annual variations in arc for the same latitude following suit.

In article ,
oriel36 wrote:
On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:21:20 AM UTC+1, David Goldfarb wrote:
And yet you yourself also have the Earth rotating upon its axis once
more often than there are days. You have the 365 daily solar rotations,
and you have the "second surface rotation", which completes once in
a year. Both of these are rotations, are they not? Both of them
are about the Earth's axis?

All planets have a surface rotation to the central Sun as a function of
their orbital motion where the North/South poles are a handy reference
for that surface rotation

But that rotation would take the Earth's axis away from Polaris.
I thought the whole point of your "second surface rotation" is that
it counterbalances the orbital motion in order to keep the axis
pointed at the Pole Star. You are not going to go so far as to
deny that Polaris is the Pole Star year-round, are you?

(Perhaps you are, I've seen you deny things that were plainer to see.)

The real resolution of this problem, of course, is to become comfortable
with the modern, much more productive view, that partitions rotational
motion from orbital motion. But if the Moon orbits the Earth without
spinning, as you insist, it follows that the Earth's orbital motion
must likewise turn it; and that means moving the axis, since the axis
is tilted. So to prevent the axis from moving, you need to add one
rotation per year.

--
David Goldfarb |"Oh, no! They've all become giant Swiss
| lederhosen-clad dancing yodelers!"
| -- Animaniacs

On Monday, August 18, 2014 10:03:32 AM UTC+1, David Goldfarb wrote:
In article ,

oriel36 wrote:

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:21:20 AM UTC+1, David Goldfarb wrote:

And yet you yourself also have the Earth rotating upon its axis once

more often than there are days. You have the 365 daily solar rotations,

and you have the "second surface rotation", which completes once in

a year. Both of these are rotations, are they not? Both of them

are about the Earth's axis?



All planets have a surface rotation to the central Sun as a function of

their orbital motion where the North/South poles are a handy reference

for that surface rotation



But that rotation would take the Earth's axis away from Polaris.

I thought the whole point of your "second surface rotation" is that

it counterbalances the orbital motion in order to keep the axis

pointed at the Pole Star. You are not going to go so far as to

deny that Polaris is the Pole Star year-round, are you?



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 ?.

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.

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

People who wish to appreciate why the Sun emerges or exits from the local horizon at the Equinox at the Poles need a rotation to explain it just as rotation explains the daily event at lower latitudes.

It took a lot of work to extract that observation and conclusion but it is done and now part of 21st century astronomy.

On Saturday, August 16, 2014 12:58:27 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

If I apply said filter, at this point in time I see just 16 posts in
total in this thread - from authors: Bryan. palsing, Quadibloc,
Androcles, and you. All that other "crap", including my own reponses,
martin's, and your's are gone and only legit posts in the thread remain
visible.

Back when I read sci.astro with TIN I would place trolls and their correspondents into a kill file, which eventually reached close to 1000 entries. Doing so made sci.astro almost useable.

Investment in a better "reader" than Google Groups doesn't seem worth it, though.

Newbies to SAA would need time to figure out who to filter out. Oriole is a good start.

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 9:53:37 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:53:52 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:34:42 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

You are such a blockhead. Look here...



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



... and read the caption for this graphic... "Precessional movement of the Earth - the Earth rotates (white arrows) once a day about its axis of rotation (red); this axis itself rotates slowly (white circle), completing a rotation in approximately 26,000 years"...



To repeat for those with limited comprehension skills... the white circle completes a rotation in approximately 26,000 years and NOT in 24 hours..



Sheesh!



You don't get the new innovation which is easily affirmed using the motion of Uranus over a 7 year period -



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



This is a surface rotation to the central Sun as a function of the orbital motion of the planet hence the old idea of 'precession' has to give to the more productive view for multiple purposes.



Just because YOU had an 'Aha' moment does NOT allow you to change the definition of long-standing terms. There is no 'new' definition for precession because the old one is still needed. There is no 'new' motion except in your feeble mind, the motions of the Earth have been understood for a very long while now, long, long before you or I were born. It is virtually impossible for either you or I to develop a 'new innovation' for the apparent motion of the Sun or planets and it is only your monstrous ego that allows you to make such a claim in the first place.


You give undue credit to those guys in the late 17th century who didn't have the tools we have today but the real impact of current tools goes back to the real issue which dominated the emergence of the Earth's planetary dynamics via Copernicus and his contemporaries.

The real issue is whether the framework which predicts astronomical events would fit in with the proof that the Earth moves and nobody had the answer until now . I see the history of astronomy spread before me and all the different perspectives which represent various stages of development in timekeeping on one side and structural astronomy on the other but that came to a halt when empiricists ran with a rotating celestial sphere/clockwork solar system that still dominates this forum and the wider world.

The 'AHA' moment was a result of a considerable amount of energy at a time when imaging on the internet was not fully developed and especially those images of Uranus which shows why 'precession' has to give way to the surface rotation that results from the specific way the Earth moves through space and around the Sun. I even remember the painful experience which allowed me to make the breakthrough in that the only means to explain 6 months of daylight at the poles followed by 6 months of darkness was to take the wider view corresponding to a single surface rotation to the Sun accomplished over an annual circuit -

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

What looks like planetary precession to the observer is really a result of a planet moving through space and turning to the Sun at the same time thereby displacing the less productive 'tilt' towards and away from the Sun.

Not all innovations are a painful experience but that one was in taking every ounce of perspective energy to settle on a firm conclusion.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:48:45 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote:

Not all innovations are a painful experience but that one was in taking every ounce of perspective energy to settle on a firm conclusion.

GIGO
--
Email address is a Spam trap.

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.

On Monday, August 18, 2014 12:48:45 PM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:

You give undue credit to those guys in the late 17th century who didn't have
the tools we have today

We have these tools largely *thanks* to Isaac Newton putting physics on the right track.

but the real impact of current tools goes back to the
real issue which dominated the emergence of the Earth's planetary dynamics
via Copernicus and his contemporaries.

The real issue is whether the framework which predicts astronomical events
would fit in with the proof that the Earth moves and nobody had the answer
until now .

In fact, Isaac Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation *was* the answer, which, by supplying a mechanism, ended the debate over the Copernican system.

I see the history of astronomy spread before me and all the different
perspectives which represent various stages of development in timekeeping on
one side and structural astronomy on the other but that came to a halt when
empiricists ran with a rotating celestial sphere/clockwork solar system that
still dominates this forum and the wider world.

Structural astronomy is a snare and a delusion.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Monday, August 18, 2014 12:48:45 PM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:

You give undue credit to those guys in the late 17th century who didn't
have
the tools we have today

We have these tools largely *thanks* to Isaac Newton putting physics on the
right track.


Then why thank Einstein for putting physics and astronomy in a cul-de-sac
leading to a blind alley with an 8" aperture to make Mars appear as big as
the Moon?

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles, Archbishop of Ballistic Light.

I have often wondered how many parents out there had felt inferior because the education system is built around those who are 'good at math' whereas the teachers are not good at math/geometry and especially the type of analytical mind capable of working with long term motions in condensed form seen in those images that I bring up so often -

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

Simple questions like what is the cause of daylight turning to darkness around the Equinoxes at the North/South poles are never asked least the surface rotation answer required to explain it disturbs the celestial sphere bunch who are 'good at math' yet lack common sense among other things.

Astronomy is so enjoyable and nothing like the bluff and voodoo that now characterizes the empirical dominance of this old and noble discipline insofar as the discipline itself is being starved of people who can make sense of the visual narratives and who will find an infinite amount of ways to further appreciation of astronomy and terrestrial sciences.

I see in another thread that Peterson uses the term 'flat Earth' directed towards another equally vacuous participant yet there never were people who believed the Earth was flat but there were people who looked for arguments for a round Earth and one of which is the arc of the Sun as it emerges from the local horizon which in itself is created by the Earth's curvature. In short, as a race of people,we are coming from a point of intellectual and inspirational nadir now that observers come to terms with the observation that the Sun's arc from horizon to horizon is the gorgeous arc created by a round and rotating Earth. From here the ascent to astronomical proficiency becomes rapid and meaningful in such a way that the color and life comes back to a discipline that has been vandalized for so long.