December Solstice repost

Within a few days the polar coordinates will turn to a position which is most distant from the circle of illumination by virtue that our magnificent planet has a single surface rotation to the central Sun in addition to daily rotation - all planets have ;

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

Readers here have grown accustomed to those images yet the descriptions of the solstices are still regrettably in geocentric terms or some variations on a 'tilted' Earth giving the impression that the Earth 'tilts' towards and away from the Sun. The actual explanation is fairly new and truly enjoyable as it introduces its audience to the idea that the Earth turns once and unevenly (hence the variations in natural noon) while also turning daily.

There is so much new material flowing from that observation above including a climate spectrum which turns the old 'no tilt/no seasons' into a more productive perspective of an equatorial climate which is then set off against 90 degree inclination and the other end of the spectrum of a polar climate..

Anyone care to describe the motion of the polar coordinates over the next week is more than welcome to but the days of doing it with a rotating celestial sphere are now long over. Don't be so quiet,this is not just repair and rebuilding astronomy,this is from a wave of new tools that will delight the mind of spirit in human nature that has been missing for quite some time.

Gerald may or may not be on the autistic spectrum. What I do know is that some of his behaviour is quite unlike that of the autistic students I worked with during many years in education.

I don't believe for a minute that he actually believes much of what he writes but I do believe that he has painted himself into an emotional, psychological and scientific corner. He quite literally dare not answer any questions about his beliefs (particularly where his beliefs differ from main stream views)because the irrationality of his postings would then become even more obvious.

Some of his "new insights" are just re-phrasings of concepts the rest of the astronomical community has known and understood for years but many of the rest fly in the face of the evidence that he either/or a) ignores and b) will not answer questions about!

He almost invariably posts material just as if previous participants to the thread didn't exist. I cannot recall a single example when he has changed his view on anything based on what others have said within this group.

He goes through obsessive phases - at the moment it is Sirius. In the past I can recall when almost daily he posted links to photos of Uranus or pretended that the moon didn't rotate.

He must a dreadfully sad life!

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:23:40 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
it introduces its audience to the idea that the Earth turns once and unevenly
(hence the variations in natural noon) while also turning daily.

The Earth turns once and unevenly towards the Sun during the course of a year. Check.

This causes the variations in the Equation of Time. Check.

There are about 365 1/4 days in a year. Check.

Thus, the Earth must be doing *something* either 364 1/4 times a year or 366 1/4 days a year which, when combined with the one time the Earth turns due to its orbital motion *yields* the 365 1/4 days a year we experience.

And, indeed, apparent stellar circumpolar motion takes place 366 1/4 times a year, and is (except for very small effects, much smaller than those associated with the Equation of Time) not variable - stellar circumpolar motion was used to adjust even very precise temperature-compensated pendulum clocks in observatories during the 19th Century and for time after.

I know you view linking the Earth's motion to the stars involves skipping a hierarchical step, because you see the Earth as subordinate to the Sun - and our insistence that only something uniform in mechanical time can be called (intrinsic) rotation you see as based on "empirical" reasoning - because you believe the proper approach to astronomy is to look at regularities in the motions of the several planets and so on, but without any attempt to treat celestial objects as though they were physical objects, subject to the same dynamical laws as small objects on the surface of the Earth.

I don't know how I can convey to you that...

this would cripple astronomy, which has in fact had great successes by understanding celestial bodies physically (the use of Newton's laws of gravitation to locate Neptune is an outstanding example)...

and for that and other reasons, your ideas are utterly unappealing to astronomers; they seem to have no rational basis, no reason why they should be right and the existing conventional wisdom wrong.

(I dare again to reply as you have already reposted this once...)

John Savard