100% observational certainty

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

It takes two 360 degree motions with respect to the central Sun to
account for the seasons and variations in the natural noon cycle,the
orbital component may initially be tricky to spot but it has already
been observationally isolated apart from the separate motion of daily
rotation and its specific orientation which that motion generates.

The quasi-dynamic is simply a consequence of orbital specifics and it
is a 100 % observational certainty -

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

On 17 Mar, 08:38, oriel36 wrote:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

It takes two 360 degree motions with respect to the central Sun to
account for the seasons and variations in the natural noon cycle,the
orbital component may initially be tricky to spot but it has already
been observationally isolated apart from the separate motion of *daily
rotation and its specific orientation which that motion generates.

The quasi-dynamic is simply a consequence of orbital specifics and it
is a *100 % observational certainty -

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

You identified a link that, I assume, offers supporting evidence for
your claim.

So .... please explain exactly what these images show and how they
support your views.

On Mar 17, 9:59*am, ukastronomy
wrote:
On 17 Mar, 08:38, oriel36 wrote:

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

It takes two 360 degree motions with respect to the central Sun to
account for the seasons and variations in the natural noon cycle,the
orbital component may initially be tricky to spot but it has already
been observationally isolated apart from the separate motion of *daily
rotation and its specific orientation which that motion generates.

The quasi-dynamic is simply a consequence of orbital specifics and it
is a *100 % observational certainty -

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

You identified a link that, I assume, offers supporting evidence for
your claim.

So .... please explain exactly what these images show and how they
support your views.

The images show an orbital specific quasi-dynamic meaning that the
orientation change of the rings to the central Sun has no motive
property relating to daily rotation and its tilt/rotational
orientation but is a consequence of the specific way a planet orbits
the Sun -

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

As the Equinox approaches,the planet will turn slowly to bring its
daily rotational properties in line with the circle of illumination
thereby all locations,regardless of their rotational speeds will
experience equality in daylight/darkness just as it occurs at the
Equator throughout the entire annual orbit.

What is it that you cannot see in the time lapse footage relating to
two 360 degree motions intrinsic to the planet itself with the orbital
quasi-dynamic as an explicit consequence of its parent annual orbital
motion around the central Sun?

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

The question is somewhat rhetorical because it can be actually seen,
interpreted and applied to our planet's seasons and separate natural
noon cycle variations.

On 17 Mar, 11:55, oriel36 wrote:

I still do not understand why you continue to claim that places at the
equator have equal day and night all year.

They don't I promise you. Observation show variation in day length
(and in the position where the sun rises and sets) does happen for
places at the equator.

On Mar 17, 4:55*am, oriel36 wrote:

The images show an orbital specific quasi-dynamic meaning that the
orientation change of the rings to the central Sun has no motive
property relating to daily rotation and its tilt/rotational
orientation but is a consequence of the specific way a planet orbits
the Sun -

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

As the Equinox approaches,the planet will turn slowly to bring its
daily rotational properties in line with the circle of illumination
thereby all locations,regardless of their rotational speeds will
experience equality in daylight/darkness just as it occurs at the
Equator throughout the entire annual orbit.

What is it that you cannot see in the time lapse footage relating to
two 360 degree motions intrinsic to the planet itself with the orbital
quasi-dynamic as an explicit consequence of its parent annual orbital
motion around the central Sun?

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

The question is somewhat rhetorical because it can be actually seen,
interpreted and applied to our planet's seasons and *separate natural
noon cycle variations.


What those pictures actually show is that the rings of Uranus seem to
slowly turn with respect to the location of the camera that took the
pictures, which is in orbit around the earth. Since the earth revolves
around the sun much faster than does Uranus, well, our point of view
also changes, and we see those rings from a different angle.

Of course, those rings seems to turn with respect to the sun, too,
because Uranus itself orbits the sun, just like all of the other
planets. Uranus also has a pole star, and its pole always points to
that star, just like every other planet. The orientations of the
planets only seem to turn with respect to the sun because of their
travels along their orbits.

So, it is easy to see that NO planets have the Magical Mystery Motion
that you seem to see.

You are right, the camera does not lie, it reveals everything, but
your particular interpretation of those pictures is grievously flawed.
I look at those pictures and they seem very clear to me, and they
don't support your position at all, just the opposite.

As usual with you, you are the only person (at least here) that
interprets things this way, there is no one else who sees what you
see, and I doubt very much it is because you are the only one among us
who has "intuitive intelligence". There are some very intuitive and
intelligent folks here, and many are "genuine" scientists, I'm sure.

The whole concept is really not that hard to comprehend. Why you
insist on reading a whole new "tricky to spot" story between the lines
is beyond me.

On Mar 17, 5:32*pm, ukastronomy
wrote:
On 17 Mar, 11:55, oriel36 wrote:

I still do not understand why you continue to claim that places at the
equator have equal day and night all year.

They don't I promise you. Observation show variation in day length
(and in the position where the sun rises and sets) does happen for
places at the equator.

You do not understand a lot of things Martin even when you have the
ability to see the two 360 degrees motions in front of you.The most
basic means to appreciate the change in orbital orientation to the
central Sun allied with daily rotation is the variations in the
natural noon cycle,a global variations irrespective of hemispherical
differences .Considering that seasonal differences split at the
Equator where it experiences ,to all intents and purposes ,stable
conditions throughout the annual cycle which occur globally at the
Equinox,I do not know where you are going to get daylight/darkness
variations from,and you know what,I do not care to hear the fiction.

There are no claims made here,at least as regard the intepretation of
the observations themselves and there is no attempt to convince people
who cannot discern the orbital specific as the cause of the seasons
and the natural noon cycle when allied with daily rotation -

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

The isolation of the quasi-dynamic orbital feature is so certain that
not seeing it may constitute a bigger problem and one which I will
avoid,I consider it still a question of unfamiliarity -

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

The magnificent orbital motion of the Earth produces a slow turning
which will bring the daily rotational poles in line with the circle of
illumination in a few days.It is a major modification of the original
clear proposal by Copernicus which is based on a weak hypothesis and
conclusion -

"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 role of equatorial/axial inclination of a planet determines
whether a planet experiences equatorial like or polar-like conditions
but the dynamic for seasonal change is strictly a component of orbital
motion and NOAA or some other reputable organisation must interpret
directly from orbital comparisons between Earth and Uranus or directly
from the observations of Uranus itself demonstrating the power of
modern imaging in explicitly splitting global climate from
hemispherical weather patterns.

On Mar 17, 5:52*pm, palsing wrote:
On Mar 17, 4:55*am, oriel36 wrote:





The images show an orbital specific quasi-dynamic meaning that the
orientation change of the rings to the central Sun has no motive
property relating to daily rotation and its tilt/rotational
orientation but is a consequence of the specific way a planet orbits
the Sun -

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

As the Equinox approaches,the planet will turn slowly to bring its
daily rotational properties in line with the circle of illumination
thereby all locations,regardless of their rotational speeds will
experience equality in daylight/darkness just as it occurs at the
Equator throughout the entire annual orbit.

What is it that you cannot see in the time lapse footage relating to
two 360 degree motions intrinsic to the planet itself with the orbital
quasi-dynamic as an explicit consequence of its parent annual orbital
motion around the central Sun?

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

The question is somewhat rhetorical because it can be actually seen,
interpreted and applied to our planet's seasons and *separate natural
noon cycle variations.

What those pictures actually show is that the rings of Uranus seem to
slowly turn with respect to the location of the camera that took the
pictures, which is in orbit around the earth. Since the earth revolves
around the sun much faster than does Uranus, well, our point of view
also changes, and we see those rings from a different angle.


I almost swore I would not reply or descend to this low level of
thinking,no offence to you,but rather to allow genuine investigators
to become familiar with the specific way a planet orbits the central
Sun,I just did not think anybody would be silly enough to use your
reasoning considering the Earth's distance from Uranus and Uranus
distances from the Sun.That being said, I have no reason to believe
that the rest are any better or worse than you are in making
statements like this.I really do not wish to resort to graphics,as
this I consider a child's view,but the specific way Uranus orbits the
central Sun involves a distinct orbital turning which has nothing to
do with the motion of the Earth -

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/as...sc02_fig01.png

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

Anybody else like to make a fool of themselves ?.

All things being equal and this being the usenet,you have a perfect
right to respond but as the actual time lapse footage of Uranus in
motions clearly shows that a planet must have a specific turning to
the central Sun in its annual orbit but I do not wish to make you
appear any worse than you are even if you do not seem to mind.

On Mar 17, 11:22*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 17, 5:52*pm, palsing wrote:



On Mar 17, 4:55*am, oriel36 wrote:

The images show an orbital specific quasi-dynamic meaning that the
orientation change of the rings to the central Sun has no motive
property relating to daily rotation and its tilt/rotational
orientation but is a consequence of the specific way a planet orbits
the Sun -

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

As the Equinox approaches,the planet will turn slowly to bring its
daily rotational properties in line with the circle of illumination
thereby all locations,regardless of their rotational speeds will
experience equality in daylight/darkness just as it occurs at the
Equator throughout the entire annual orbit.

What is it that you cannot see in the time lapse footage relating to
two 360 degree motions intrinsic to the planet itself with the orbital
quasi-dynamic as an explicit consequence of its parent annual orbital
motion around the central Sun?

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

The question is somewhat rhetorical because it can be actually seen,
interpreted and applied to our planet's seasons and *separate natural
noon cycle variations.

What those pictures actually show is that the rings of Uranus seem to
slowly turn with respect to the location of the camera that took the
pictures, which is in orbit around the earth. Since the earth revolves
around the sun much faster than does Uranus, well, our point of view
also changes, and we see those rings from a different angle.

I almost *swore I would not reply or descend to this low level of
thinking,no offence to you,but rather to allow genuine investigators
to become familiar with the specific way a planet orbits the central
Sun,I just did not think anybody would be silly enough to use your
reasoning considering *the Earth's distance from Uranus and Uranus
distances from the Sun.That being said, *I have no reason to believe
that the rest are any better or worse than you are in making
statements like this.I really do not wish to resort to graphics,as
this I consider a child's view,but the specific way Uranus orbits the
central Sun involves a distinct orbital turning which has nothing to
do with the motion of the Earth -

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/as...sc02_fig01.png

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

Anybody else like to make a fool of themselves *?.

All things being equal and this being the usenet,you have a perfect
right to respond but as the actual time lapse footage of Uranus in
motions clearly shows that a planet must have a specific turning *to
the central Sun in its annual orbit but I do not wish to make you
appear any worse than you are even if you do not seem to mind.

Since my view is the same as all of the great astronomers of both the
past and the present, and since your views are strictly your own, a
genuine investigator would assuredly take my side in this little
squabble. Do you really think that both today's and yesterday's
astronomers have all made fools of themselves? Of course, if you could
only show where anyone else sees it your way, anyone at all, well,
there might be room for further discussion.

What does the different distance from the sun of the earth and Uranus
have to do with this discussion? The mechanics are the same.

I know you are not an idiot, I know you are well-read in many
different fields, but you still have many really loopy ideas swirling
around in that cranial calculator of yours, which seems to spend an
inordinate amount of time in its rectal storage facility.

The time lapse footage of Uranus shows us exactly what we expect it to
show, that those rings turn with respect to the sun, as it travels
around along its orbit, and that's all that it shows. It does not
change that fact that the poles of this planet, of all the planets, do
NOT turn with respect to the essentially fixed sphere of stars. Don't
you agree that right now the northern axis of the earth points
essentially at Polaris all the time? Can't you even agree to this
simplest observations? Didn't you ever have a toy top as a kid?

It is very frustrating to explain things to you in the simplest
possible terms and still not get through. It is becoming clear that in
all probability, I'm the one who is descending to a lower level in
trying to open your eyes to reality.

As always, your challenge is to convince someone with credentials to
buy into your theory, and so far, in this regard, you have been a
miserable failure. Emperor Oriel has no clothes.

Regards,

\Paul A