This one is for oriel36: Reading the sky

On Nov 7, 12:25*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/6/12 3:35 PM, oriel36 wrote:









The sky is up there Sam as a convenient and beautiful expression but
for an astronomer the celestial arena is out there with the Sun in the
center so your questions are all homocentric in design rather than
geocentric and especially question 2.

Lat's face it,the majority here already know how the planetary
dynamics of the Earth developed from the use of retrograde resolution
by Copernicus -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

They can see that when telescopes emerged,Galileo furthered the
arguments for the Earth's orbital motion by appealing to the
luminosity variations as Venus approaches and recedes from the Earth -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/S...age%20flat.jpg

In short you will have a better appreciation of astronomy if you focus
on the motions of the planets rather than the motion of the Sun and
nobody will be as pleased as I am when that happens.

The next montage of images is really important as it demonstrates the
modification of axial precession from a long term axial trait to an
annual orbital trait as the polar coordinates are seen to turn to the
central Sun,it is extremely tricky but with the aid of analogies,it
becomes quickly apparent that the old 'no tilt/no seasons' must give
way to the spectrum of global climate that ranges from an equatorial/
temperate climate *(zero degree inclination) to a polar climate (90
degree inclination).If the Earth moved from its 23 1/2 degree
inclination to a 45 degree inclination,it would acquire more polar
attributes as the Arctic/Antarctic circles moved closer together and
to the equator.This is what modelers should be looking at instead of
being doom merchants.

*http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/physics...etting-sun.jpg

Gerald I sure hope you can figure out the right answers--this picture
shows the Sun over eleven successive hours as photographed from a fixed
location.

1. What time was it when the Sun reached its minimum height above the
horizon?

2. In what compass direction (north, south, east, or west) was the
camera facing when the Sun reached its minimum height?

3. Is the Sun moving right to left or left or right?

4. Was it spring, summer, fall or winter when this picture was taken?

You know Sam,seven years ago when nobody was discussing why the planet
is not perfectly spherical and why we have high mountains and all the
magnificent geological features using the same mechanism,it appeared
here in sci.astro.amateur due to the fact that an uneven rotational
gradient (differential rotation) is a common feature of all rotating
celestial bodies with fluid compositions hence it means researching
the topic from the point of view of rotation beneath your feet rather
than what is going on in the sky.Because the link between an uneven
rotational gradient and an uneven spherical shape was left to drift as
there is no research institution or process to handle the links
between planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects,it was only a
matter of time before mischief followed in an attempt to throw the
kitchen sink at rotation and plate tectonics and I have to watch as a
nascent study is strangled by crude and less than intelligent people
mishandling rotation and its geological effects.

Had you followed the correct astronomical principles which focuses
attention on the motions of the planets rather than the apparent
motion of the Sun you would have avoided so much trouble and
devastation it caused.I never held one scientist accountable for
making the errors or creating the distortions they did in the late
17th century nor those who unfortunately never spotted the contrived
views,at least those who genuinely sought to understand,and these were
clever people but I do hold contemporaries accountable.That being
said ,it does expose something which makes such accountability less of
an issue as few have shown comprehension of the most basic historical
and technical issues insofar as Copernicus,along with many astronomers
of his time,noted the direct motion of the Sun as opposed to the
wandering motions of the planets whereas today you and your empirical
colleagues have a wandering Sun and use planetary dynamics to explain
this clock generated model -

" Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times,
and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. " Copernicus

I have the social standing below that of a criminal for no other
reason than I present. and sometimes modify, astronomical viewpoints I
inherited and technical topics that have been left dormant for
centuries.One decent man here I met in person once called me an
engineer - I am not,I am an astronomer who happens to do whatever it
is possible to create a home for astronomy in a world that doesn't
seem to like astronomy very much or treats it simply as a
magnification exercise of the night sky when it really is a
breathtaking look at the celestial arena both day and night.

So Sam,you have your answer as to why the 'planet definition' was a
silly endeavor based on the apparent motion of the Sun as opposed to
the motions of the planets explained using the orbital motion of the
Earth.


When possible I try to treat you as equals and that you really do
appreciate the arguments despite appearance but the feeling is not
reciprocal

Oriel36 is probably having orgasms of pleasure as yet another person
falls into the trap of inviting him to answer simple questions.

It is part of Oriel's mental health issues that he is unable or
unwilling to respond to questions. If you have even the slightest
degree of compassion for him you will refuse to acknowledge his
existance in this group. In that way there is at least some hope that
he can get the help he so urgently needs.

On Nov 6, 1:33*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/physics...etting-sun.jpg

Gerald--this picture shows the Sun over eleven successive hours as
photographed from a fixed location.

1. What time was it when the Sun reached its minimum height above the
horizon?

2. In what compass direction (north, south, east, or west) was the
camera facing when the Sun reached its minimum height?

3. Is the Sun moving right to left or left or right?

4. Was it spring, summer, fall or winter when this picture was taken?

If you shot a bear there, its fur would be white.

(1) Midnight.

(2) North. At the North Pole, the Sun wouldn't move on a daily basis
up and down, only around. This was taken north of the Arctic Circle
(since we see ocean, not land) and so the Sun is at its lowest when
you are looking at it over the North Pole.

(3) The sequence of photos show it moving to the right. That means the
Earth is turning to the left, or counterclockwise, confirming that
we're in the Arctic, not the Antarctic.

(4) (Northern Hemisphere) summer.

John Savard

On Nov 7, 1:14*am, Martin Nicholson
wrote:

It is part of Oriel's mental health issues that he is unable or
unwilling to respond to questions.

That could also be a characteristic of a 'bot; but, actually, he tries
except when he feels someone is trying to trick or entrap him into
contradicting himself... which applies to those who disagree with him.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message ...
On Nov 6, 1:33 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/physics...etting-sun.jpg

Gerald--this picture shows the Sun over eleven successive hours as
photographed from a fixed location.

1. What time was it when the Sun reached its minimum height above the
horizon?

2. In what compass direction (north, south, east, or west) was the
camera facing when the Sun reached its minimum height?

3. Is the Sun moving right to left or left or right?

4. Was it spring, summer, fall or winter when this picture was taken?

If you shot a bear there, its fur would be white.

(1) Midnight.

(2) North. At the North Pole, the Sun wouldn't move on a daily basis
up and down, only around. This was taken north of the Arctic Circle
(since we see ocean, not land) and so the Sun is at its lowest when
you are looking at it over the North Pole.

(3) The sequence of photos show it moving to the right. That means the
Earth is turning to the left, or counterclockwise, confirming that
we're in the Arctic, not the Antarctic.

(4) (Northern Hemisphere) summer.

John Savard

======================================
The photographs were taken 23 hours apart, CONFIRMING the Antarctic
and CONFIRMING your ASSUMPTION was WRONG.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On 11/7/12 7:48 AM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
eleven successive hours

Something as simple as twilight arising from a daily rotational cause
and the separate twilight at the equinoxes as the polar coordinates
turn through the circle of illumination and the Sun and its light
disappears for roughly 5 months until polar dawn as the polar
coordinates turn back through the circle of illumination or rather
carried around in a circle by the orbital behavior of the planet.

Not a shred of an explanation anywhere else,just a blurring of details
based on a really dumb notion of the perceived angle of descent of
the Sun whereas an astronomer would work off latitudinal speeds,the
slower the latitudinal speed the longer the twilight as demanded by
logic so long as the Sun is visible at all times of the year.The polar
twilight is a separate issue with a separate cause,a cause which is
vital in understanding why the seasons change and why natural noon
cycles vary.

I wouldn't know what type of mind would rely on the apparent descent
of the Sun below the horizon to account for the twilight experience
which only daily rotation and latitudinal speeds could account for -
it is though there was some fear of change among readers.I already
know that somewhere down the line the correct correlation between
daily latitudinal speeds and twilight lengths will start to appear but
such is the nature of rut science and bandwagon science.

oriel36 wrote:
Something as simple as twilight arising from a daily rotational cause
and the separate twilight at the equinoxes as the polar coordinates
turn through the circle of illumination and the Sun and its light
disappears for roughly 5 months until polar dawn as the polar
coordinates turn back through the circle of illumination or rather
carried around in a circle by the orbital behavior of the planet.

Not a shred of an explanation anywhere else,just a blurring of details
based on a really dumb notion of the perceived angle of descent of
the Sun whereas an astronomer would work off latitudinal speeds,the
slower the latitudinal speed the longer the twilight as demanded by
logic so long as the Sun is visible at all times of the year.The polar
twilight is a separate issue with a separate cause,a cause which is
vital in understanding why the seasons change and why natural noon
cycles vary.

No the polar twilight is just the same twilight.
You try to make simple observations unnecessarily complex.


I wouldn't know what type of mind would rely on the apparent descent
of the Sun below the horizon to account for the twilight experience

A sane mind.

which only daily rotation and latitudinal speeds could account for -

Latitudinal speed is just a consequence of angular rotation. That's why
your head turns faster than your feet. Even though the angle is the same.

it is though there was some fear of change among readers.
No. We just don't want to abandon the correct explanation in favour of your
infantile nonsense.


I already
know that somewhere down the line the correct correlation between
daily latitudinal speeds and twilight lengths will start to appear but
such is the nature of rut science and bandwagon science.

It's already available but not to people who are unable to visualise.
You are wrong.
Grow up and try to understand the real world, not your cosy, inconsistent
twisted perception of reality.
You live in the discredited world of Ancient Greek philosophers who
believed in mythical essences.
Join the real world. Aristotle was wrong and stifled the understanding if
the real world for centuries.
Grow up and try to understand the real world.

On Nov 7, 9:52*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Something as simple as twilight arising from a daily rotational cause
and the separate twilight at the equinoxes as the polar coordinates
turn through the circle of illumination and the Sun and its light
disappears for roughly 5 months until polar dawn as the polar
coordinates turn back through the circle of illumination or rather
carried around in a circle by the orbital behavior of the planet.

Not a shred of an explanation anywhere else,just a blurring of details
based on *a really dumb notion of the perceived angle of descent of
the Sun whereas an astronomer would work off latitudinal speeds,the
slower the latitudinal speed the longer the twilight as demanded by
logic so long as the Sun is visible at all times of the year.The polar
twilight is a separate issue with a separate cause,a cause which is
vital in understanding why the seasons change and why natural noon
cycles vary.

No the polar twilight is just the same twilight.
You try to make simple observations unnecessarily complex.



I wouldn't know what type of mind would rely on the apparent descent
of the Sun below the horizon to account for the twilight experience

A sane mind.

which only daily rotation and latitudinal speeds could account for -

Latitudinal speed is just a consequence of angular rotation. That's why
your head turns faster than your feet. Even though the angle is the same.

it is though there was some fear of change among readers.

No. We just don't want to abandon the correct explanation in favour of your
infantile nonsense.

I already
know that somewhere down the line the correct correlation between
daily latitudinal speeds and twilight lengths will start to appear but
such is the nature of rut science and bandwagon science.

It's already available but not to people who are unable to visualise.
You are wrong.
Grow up and try to understand the real world, not your cosy, inconsistent
twisted perception of reality.
You live in the discredited world of Ancient Greek philosophers who
believed in mythical essences.
Join the real world. Aristotle was wrong and stifled the understanding if
the real world for centuries.
Grow up and try to understand the real world.

The real world indeed !,the most dominant perspective today is that
you can not only see the past directly,you can actually see the
evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly and people who give
themselves that regrettable 'power' would not find it possible to
return to the astronomy of human experience where things are
discovered and developed in order and causes follow from effects.

I suspect many would wish to change but the surrounding environment is
just not there presently for them to act as they should so what
happens is that they give up or give in to rut/bandwagon ideologies
which not only stretch the imagination to breaking point but use it to
distort physical considerations for pure rubbish such as 'big bang'.I
grew up being comfortable with powerful modern imaging,planes can take
us rapidly across latitudes hence the immediate experience of twilight
lengths and the fast or slow transition from daylight to darkness due
to rotational speeds,we have people and webcams at the polar
coordinates taking note of polar dawn and twilight so all in all,I
takes these contemporary conveniences and the data and move
information around without fear and with great enjoyment as opposed to
a sour bunch with nothing to say.

Se what happened to Sam's questions,they become an opera of discovery
in the right hands.

oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:52 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Something as simple as twilight arising from a daily rotational cause
and the separate twilight at the equinoxes as the polar coordinates
turn through the circle of illumination and the Sun and its light
disappears for roughly 5 months until polar dawn as the polar
coordinates turn back through the circle of illumination or rather
carried around in a circle by the orbital behavior of the planet.

Not a shred of an explanation anywhere else,just a blurring of details
based on a really dumb notion of the perceived angle of descent of
the Sun whereas an astronomer would work off latitudinal speeds,the
slower the latitudinal speed the longer the twilight as demanded by
logic so long as the Sun is visible at all times of the year.The polar
twilight is a separate issue with a separate cause,a cause which is
vital in understanding why the seasons change and why natural noon
cycles vary.

No the polar twilight is just the same twilight.
You try to make simple observations unnecessarily complex.



I wouldn't know what type of mind would rely on the apparent descent
of the Sun below the horizon to account for the twilight experience

A sane mind.

which only daily rotation and latitudinal speeds could account for -

Latitudinal speed is just a consequence of angular rotation. That's why
your head turns faster than your feet. Even though the angle is the same.

it is though there was some fear of change among readers.

No. We just don't want to abandon the correct explanation in favour of your
infantile nonsense.

I already
know that somewhere down the line the correct correlation between
daily latitudinal speeds and twilight lengths will start to appear but
such is the nature of rut science and bandwagon science.

It's already available but not to people who are unable to visualise.
You are wrong.
Grow up and try to understand the real world, not your cosy, inconsistent
twisted perception of reality.
You live in the discredited world of Ancient Greek philosophers who
believed in mythical essences.
Join the real world. Aristotle was wrong and stifled the understanding if
the real world for centuries.
Grow up and try to understand the real world.

The real world indeed !,the most dominant perspective today is that
you can not only see the past directly,you can actually see the
evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly and people who give
themselves that regrettable 'power' would not find it possible to
return to the astronomy of human experience where things are
discovered and developed in order and causes follow from effects.
Quite correct. You can see the timeline if the universe directly thanks to
the finite velocity of light.



I suspect many would wish to change but the surrounding environment is
just not there presently for them to act as they should so what
happens is that they give up or give in to rut/bandwagon ideologies
which not only stretch the imagination to breaking point but use it to
distort physical considerations for pure rubbish such as 'big bang'.I
grew up being comfortable with powerful modern imaging,planes can take
us rapidly across latitudes hence the immediate experience of twilight
lengths and the fast or slow transition from daylight to darkness due
to rotational speeds,we have people and webcams at the polar
coordinates taking note of polar dawn and twilight so all in all,I
takes these contemporary conveniences and the data and move
information around without fear and with great enjoyment as opposed to
a sour bunch with nothing to say.

Who are you to call me a member of a sour bunch. I'm smiling now as I
always do when amused by your naïveté.
You are the gloomy one!



Se what happened to Sam's questions,they become an opera of discovery
in the right hands.