An empirical shindig

http://esof2012.org/

I wonder how many of these people know what causes the temperatures to
climb North of the Equator for the next few months and then descend as
the Earth's polar coordinates turn in a circle about an orbital axis
and to the central Sun thereby displacing long term precession as an
axial attribute,explaining the seasons and why natural noon cycles
vary but most importantly - assigning a largely equatorial climate to
the planet.

Maybe a separate group will look at the Earth's fracture zones running
the length of the Mid Atlantic Ridge and conclude a high probability
that an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar
latitudes in the rotating fluid interior creates a lag/advance
mechanism as crust moves symmetrically either side of the Ridge and
also generates a 26 mile spherical deviation.

All these things are for the future - during those days I may go to
the movies,walk my beloved beach by the river or the countryside where
men once created monuments to their knowledge of the celestial arena
and the motions in it - the people going to these conferences will
know none of it nor care.

On 7/9/12 1:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:
I wonder how many of these people know what causes the temperatures to
climb North of the Equator for the next few months

More solar flux per square meter than six months from now.

On Jul 9, 7:39*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/9/12 1:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:

I wonder how many of these people know what causes the temperatures to
climb North of the Equator for the next few months

* *More solar flux per square meter than six months from now.

When you hear that the Earth has a largely equatorial climate as
opposed to the almost total polar climate of Uranus then get back to
me but all you have done is repeat the old 'no tilt/no seasons'
ideology instead of the proper principles which present a different
picture.

The polar coordinates act like a beacon for the orbital quasi-rotation
hence they turn in a cycle/circle to the central Sun hence using
'tilt' towards and away from the Sun obscures the role inclination
does play in determining that the Earth has a major equatorial input
conditioned by a lesser polar input.Of course you are the same people
who cannot keep the rotations of the Earth in step with 24 hour days
via your unfortunate Ra/Dec extensions.

I should go to that empirical carnival and explain to them for the
first time what exactly Isaac did so they could have their jobs and
lifestyles.

On Jul 9, 1:45*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:39*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

* *More solar flux per square meter than six months from now.

When you hear that the Earth has a largely equatorial climate as
opposed to the almost total polar climate of Uranus then get back to
me but all you have done is repeat the old 'no tilt/no seasons'
ideology instead of the proper principles which present a different
picture.

If the angle of incidence of the Sun's radiation does not matter, and
the seasons are only due to the different length of the day...

how come it's warmer at the Equator than it is in London, England or
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan at the time of the _autumnal_ equinox?

How come it isn't warmer at the North Pole than at the Equator at the
time of the summer solstice?

John Savard

There is not a climate scientist I would care to meet,after all,the
outlines of the Earth's largely equatorial climate are not immensely
difficult to grasp and it is impossible to disprove that the Earth's
climate has a major equatorial component and a minor polar component
as opposed to Uranus which is almost exclusively polar.

All that jargon of 'carbon footprint' while the major modification for
the cause of the seasons or latitudinal variations in temperature at
different orbital points remains unattended.The issue of the Earth's
equatorial climate is almost separate to the seasonal variations where
the temperature swings tend to become wider with latitudes away from
the equator.

So,I twiddle my thumbs waiting for somebody who has the slightest
interest in planetary climate,how it is distinguished using planetary
comparisons and the dynamics which require two axes of motion to
create an accurate picture of why there are heatwaves in July and not
in December at the latitudes of North America and Western Europe.

Wish somebody would develop a sense of astronomy and where it meshes
with terrestrial sciences but not among anyone here in this forum or
at those conferences.

On Jul 10, 1:26*pm, oriel36 wrote:
the
outlines of the Earth's largely equatorial climate are not immensely
difficult to grasp and it is impossible to disprove that the Earth's
climate has a major equatorial component and a minor polar component
as opposed to Uranus which is almost exclusively polar.

Conventionally, a distinction is indeed made between:

'Polar' areas, north of the Arctic Circle and south of the Antarctic
Circle, where for at least part of the year, periods of 24 hours go by
without a change from day to night;

'Tropical' areas, between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of
Capricorn, where the Sun can be directly overhead, and where, except
at the tropics themselves, there are two maxima, and two minima,
instead of one maximum and one minimum, of solar flux in a year; and

'Temperate' areas, where every 24 hours includes both day and night,
and where the conventional four seasons follow in order.

Because the rotational axis of Uranus is so much more inclined to its
orbital plane, the distinction between these three zones indeed
differs significantly for that body.

John Savard

Contemporaries know next to nothing between planetary dynamics and
their traits in connection with climate - a planet's inclination
designates the degree of equatorial inputs or polar inputs with the
old 'no tilt/no seasons' ideology giving way to an equatorial climate
where latitudinal temperatures would not fluctuate greatly at
different orbital points.

If people want to behave like schoolboys who can't adjust to the new
perspective,there is nothing I can do about that for even though I
allow for empiricists who can't manage to enclose 4 orbital circuits
with 1461 rotations,the sequential imaging of Uranus demonstrating a
planet with a polar climate puts the new perspective beyond doubt -

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


I might show up at the empirical self-congratulatory conferences to
witness the dead imaginations who make a lifestyle out of following
Newton -

http://www.dublinscience2012.ie/2012...al-conference/

It is satisfying knowing I can shred his vicious strain of empiricism
as he set it out but the audience for setting everything straight is
exceptionally tiny,most are just living off pretense and can't handle
his idiosyncratic time,space and motion as he applied it to the works
of Copernicus and Kepler.It is why none of you can handle the
explanation for the seasons,global climate,why the natural noon cycles
vary,the connection between planetary shape,crustal evolution/motion
and the Earth's magnetic field and the many,many topics which connect
dynamics with terrestrial sciences.

I went to an empirical conference yesterday and it was most
informative,to mingle among those who assumed I was one of their own
as they talked shop - basically people with lifestyles on which a
conference circuit is a junket,one guy complained it was going to the
dentist and I well believe him.

So,we have this situation which is nothing short of a debacle -
mathematicians and engineers trying to pass themselves off as
astronomers and going along with a loose story surrounding Newton.I
was struck by the decency of most participants in that conference,some
of course are wrapped up in academic politics but at many,many
magnitudes below the level Newton worked at which in turn is many
magnitudes below the systems I operate with.

If you have medical issues you go to a doctor,if mechanical issues an
engineer and so on,astronomy doesn't have anyone comparable although
astrophotography and constellation identification is nice,but not at a
the level where planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects mesh or
planetary comparisons for a multitude of reasons.Having visited a
large empirical institution in America recently and now the
conference,a picture has emerged which makes it easier to propose
protocols for the future regardless if people are around to accept
them.

A very distinct astronomical group must emerge that is completely
untangled from the agendas which are built around the workings of
empirical universities and research centers,it does not matter if
students are presently influenced by mindnumbing dullness and a lack
of genuine productivity/creativity ,an astronomer is especially
comfortable with basic astronomical facts that the vicious strain of
empiricism is determined to ignore.

Conferences are worthless junkets,real astronomers don't need them in
the era of the internet and Skype and an indulgence people cannot
afford.It is a sad fact that there is not one person I would care to
meet after all the years on the Usenet and that is not self-
congratulatory,but after seeing how these conferences work,astronomy
is a highly personal thing where insights resonate individually and
are not subject to consensus ,something which mathematicians
apparently require more than any other group.

On Jul 13, 2:37*am, oriel36 wrote:
astronomy
is a highly personal thing where insights resonate individually and
are not subject to consensus

That is your problem right there. You seem to think that astronomy
ought to be an art, not a science - and it's sciences, with results
that are subject to objective verification, independent of personal
opinion, that get the government funding for big telescopes and other
toys.

So you can, if you want, attribute unworthy motives to astronomers if
you don't accept that they happen to know they're doing astronomy
right (the empirical approach, after all, lets you go to Nature and
verify your conclusions) - but it doesn't matter what you may
conclude, or say, or do - you won't get them to change.

John Savard

A simple imitation analogy which takes all of two minutes to explain
why the polar coordinates of any planet act like a beacon for the
inherent orbital behavior of a planet in order to make sense of topics
such as planetary climate and especially the pronounced differences
between the two axes of a planet seen in the sequence of images of
Uranus -

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

I noticed at the conference centering on Newton that they almost held
the commentators of Newton in reverence as though actually dealing
with Isaac's agenda was sacrosanct but as shown here over a decade,if
ever a disruptive work such as Newton's needed to e dealt with,it is
now when it is creating havoc where planetary dynamics and terrestrial
effects mesh.I could account for the almost total subservience to a
late 17th century debacle but not entirely,there would still have to
be a person with a speck of individuality who can handle the necessary
modifications that cannot wait and do not take a holiday because men
have lifestyles and reputations built on problematic assertions and
conclusions.

I have only regard for the present generation and do not suffer
secondary commentaries from people not good enough to make sense of
what Newton was trying to do and it doesn't matter if it is a pimple
faced empirical student or a mediocre professor who knows that there
is safety in numbers,it is not an attack on empirical welfare,and I
discovered conferences are a part of this welfare scheme,it is a call
to the talented who will have to deal with this matter effectively and
decisively.