Climate change

On Jul 2, 10:40*am, oriel36 wrote:

What none have you have done is presented the arguments against the
turning of the planet through 360 degrees in 24 hours using a normal
world globe *-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...orld_globe.jpg

If you were to simulate the motions of the Earth by walking in a
circle, holding such a globe in your hand, and turning it, to keep the
Earth's North Pole always pointing to the star Polaris, you would have
to keep the curved spine holding the globe, shown on the left side in
the photograph, always in one direction relative to the points of the
compass or the walls of the room.

So to lead to an average 24 hour solar day, and the time zone to
longitude correspondence resulting from that, the globe would have to
rotate, compared to its base and the spine holding it... once every 23
hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

John Savard

On Jul 2, 4:14*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:24 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 1, 4:11 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
* *You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see
* *the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple
* *telescope, you can see that Polaris stays with half a degree of the
* *polar axis the whole 24 hours, confirming that the earth axis is tilted
* *with respect to the ecliptic resulting in seasons.
Somehow you can have the Sun and stars together in the same sky just
like the 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax *( I have worked within
the Arctic circle in *Northern Norway ) but like all the other things
ranging from history to technical issues,these are just things you
have built up in your head and do not exist in actuality.
* *If you were an amateur astronomer, you would know that bright stars
* *are visible in daylight with a small telescope. Polaris can be viewed
* *easily with a telescope, especially when the sun is low on the
* *horizon... that happens a lot at the poles.

Here is your solar vs sidereal time hoax based on having the Sun and
stars in the same sky -

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

* *Gerald--You should read this link you posted... you might learn
* *something with a bit of disciplined study. Thanks you posting the
* *link!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Wiki link was written by the trekkie who has the return of a
star (a legitimate timekeeping average) in 24 hours 3 minutes 56
seconds -

"Because the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at
any one place at midnight will be about four minutes later each night,
until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has
transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by."

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

The 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax involves the type of people I
have no interest in and consider a nuisance,the politics of hoaxes are
irritating insofar as pretension is always at the bottom of them,the
Sokal hoax being a miniscule version of what you and the rest do here
day in and day out.The scientific hoax of Piltdown man is more
appriopriate insofar as it involves pieces that do not fit together
which is why the 'sidereal vs solar time hoax ;' as an expression of
planetary dynamics is so destructive however this requires people who
can actually tell the difference.With astronomy almost extinct, it is
proving difficult to find people,even with modern imaging tools,to
deal with the matter in a serious and responsible way.For example,you
say the Equation of Time has nothing to do with the daily cycle just
to avoid Newton's expression of the Equation of Time as absolute/
relative time and from there into supporting the inverted reference
for daily rotation whereas I would just shrug and say it is simply not
worth it.Too much imaging power and volume of data to try and squeeze
into an astrological framework.

On Jul 1, 5:01*pm, oriel36 wrote:

The other option for *the hoax is a cult,a hoax presumes that people
are aware that there is a difference,in this case between inverted
references for daily and orbital motions whereas a cult mindset such
as yourself and most here just will not get it.

Ph'nglui mglw'nahf Newton R'lyeh wgah'nagl ftaghn?

John Savard

oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 2, 4:14 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:24 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 1, 4:11 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see
the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple
telescope, you can see that Polaris stays with half a degree of the
polar axis the whole 24 hours, confirming that the earth axis is tilted
with respect to the ecliptic resulting in seasons.
Somehow you can have the Sun and stars together in the same sky just
like the 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax ( I have worked within
the Arctic circle in Northern Norway ) but like all the other things
ranging from history to technical issues,these are just things you
have built up in your head and do not exist in actuality.
If you were an amateur astronomer, you would know that bright stars
are visible in daylight with a small telescope. Polaris can be viewed
easily with a telescope, especially when the sun is low on the
horizon... that happens a lot at the poles.

Here is your solar vs sidereal time hoax based on having the Sun and
stars in the same sky -

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

Gerald--You should read this link you posted... you might learn
something with a bit of disciplined study. Thanks you posting the
link!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Wiki link was written by the trekkie who has the return of a
star (a legitimate timekeeping average) in 24 hours 3 minutes 56
seconds -

"Because the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at
any one place at midnight will be about four minutes later each night,
until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has
transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by."

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

The 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax involves the type of people I
have no interest in and consider a nuisance,the politics of hoaxes are
irritating insofar as pretension is always at the bottom of them,the
Sokal hoax being a miniscule version of what you and the rest do here
day in and day out.The scientific hoax of Piltdown man is more
appriopriate insofar as it involves pieces that do not fit together
which is why the 'sidereal vs solar time hoax ;' as an expression of
planetary dynamics is so destructive however this requires people who
can actually tell the difference.With astronomy almost extinct, it is
proving difficult to find people,even with modern imaging tools,to
deal with the matter in a serious and responsible way.For example,you
say the Equation of Time has nothing to do with the daily cycle just
to avoid Newton's expression of the Equation of Time as absolute/
relative time and from there into supporting the inverted reference
for daily rotation whereas I would just shrug and say it is simply not
worth it.Too much imaging power and volume of data to try and squeeze
into an astrological framework.

Oh, "Solar Time, Sideral Time", a total hoax, was shot
on a sound stage in Death Valley. That's old news.


Haiku Jones

On Jul 2, 4:10*pm, skyguy wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

* You need a trip to the north pole, Gerald... not only will you see
* the sun go around 361° of the horizon in 24 hours, but with the simple
* telescope, you can see that Polaris stays with half a degree of the
* polar axis the whole 24 hours, confirming that the earth axis is tilted
* with respect to the ecliptic resulting in seasons.

* Prepare to stay for six months so you can watch the sun "sink away"
* as we head into winter.

That's a great idea and well suited for demonstrating with a computer
animation. Show the horizon with degree marks, moving slowly from right
to left on the screen (north pole), while the sun remains centered on
the screen at some elevation above the horizon, representing a date
between the spring and autumn equinoxes. Start the animation with the
sun at 0-deg azimuth or due north. The program would calculate how far
to move the horizon for each compressed hour of animation time. At the
end of 24-hrs. the sun would be located one degree to the right (east)
of due north or 361-deg. of rotation. You could even add an algorithm
and data for one yearly orbit and see how the sun's altitude above the
horizon changes from one day to the next. At this time of year near the
June solstice the daily change in altitude would hardly be noticeable
but would increase to almost a degree per day near the equinoxes.

It is a bad idea to use the Earth's rotational orientation as a
description of apparent solar altitude variations over the annual
orbit as the dynamic which causes the illusion is strictly a feature
of orbital one.

I am afraid I have to use this response to finish off a bit of
housekeeping in the matter of the 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax
and why it is a destructive hoax many times in magnitude larger than
Piltdown man with the modifier that it only started out as a genuine
mistake by Flamsteed,it became a significant hoax after people
started to build on it -

"The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific
process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and
challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific
interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends
to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further
reconsideration. "

http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html

That is exactly what happened with the difference being that there is
no authority in existence to set the astronomical hoax off against the
actual references for daily and orbital motions yet that may
change.People can do better and they are going to have to.

On Jul 2, 10:20*am, oriel36 wrote:

The 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax involves the type of people I
have no interest in and consider a nuisance...

I think we all know just who the nuisance around here is...

With astronomy almost extinct, it is
proving difficult to find people,even with modern imaging tools,to
deal with the matter in a serious and responsible way.

Astronomy is alive and thriving from where I'm sitting, very exciting,
and the only problem with modern images is that you have seriously
misinterpreted most of them...

For example,you
say the Equation of Time has nothing to do with the daily cycle just
to avoid Newton's expression of the Equation of Time as absolute/
relative time and from there into supporting the inverted reference
for daily rotation whereas I would just shrug and say it is simply not
worth it.Too much imaging power and volume of data to try and squeeze
into an astrological framework.

As always, if you don't understand frames of reference, you are sunk.
Finished. Strike 3, you're out.

I think Albert might have been talking about you here;

“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they
call their point of view.” - Albert Einstein

“How little do they see what really is, who frame their hasty judgment
upon that which seems.” - Daniel Webster

\Paul A

On Jul 2, 11:24*am, oriel36 wrote:

It is a bad idea to use the Earth's rotational orientation as a
description of apparent solar altitude variations *over the annual
orbit as the dynamic which causes the illusion is strictly a feature
of orbital one.

Well DUH!!!

Of course the apparent solar altitude is strictly a feature of orbital
dynamics, what do you think we have trying to tell you? Except, it
isn't an illusion, and the sun really does vary in altitude over the
course of a year because of the Earth's orbit.

You never noticed this from Northern Norway???

\Paul A

skyguy wrote:

You could even add an algorithm
and data for one yearly orbit and see how the sun's altitude above the
horizon changes from one day to the next. At this time of year near the
June solstice the daily change in altitude would hardly be noticeable
but would increase to almost a degree per day near the equinoxes.

I'm planning to do that to create the analemma by superimposing
successive images of the Sun as viewed from the Earth.

Can't do it without elliptical orbits, though. Getting the right
figure for the analemma would be a superb check that the animation
correctly models reality.
--
Dave

On Jul 2, 8:00*pm, palsing wrote:
On Jul 2, 11:24*am, oriel36 wrote:

It is a bad idea to use the Earth's rotational orientation as a
description of apparent solar altitude variations *over the annual
orbit as the dynamic which causes the illusion is strictly a feature
of orbital one.

Well DUH!!!

Of course the apparent solar altitude is strictly a feature of orbital
dynamics, what do you think we have trying to tell you? Except, it
isn't an illusion, and the sun really does vary in altitude over the
course of a year because of the Earth's orbit.

You never noticed this from Northern Norway???

\Paul A

Look,the apparent variation of the Sun over the course of an annual
orbit is an illusion just as apparent planetary retrogrades in
another context are illusions and resolved by taking into account
planetary dynamics ,the cause of the Sun's apparent variation is
strictly arising from the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun and
nothing to do with daily rotation or tilt.The answer is easy enough to
come to by making planetary comparisons between Uranus and Earth .

In any case,this is linked in with planetary dynamics,climate change
and how global climate cannot be derived as an extension of
weather.Not a chance of getting this up a running when there are two
opposing astrological frameworks for planetary dynamics of 'sidereal
vs solar time' on one side and a wandering 'analemma' Sun on the
other,both equally vacuous and nonsensical.

Maybe a genuine teacher can instruct his pupils that the Earth rotates
69.17 miles every 4 minutes at the Equator and the entire 24 901.5
miles in 24 hours where 1 degree of geographical separation equates to
4 minutes and 24 hours registers 360 degrees of rotation.The feeling
of,being put on a different road of freedom and individuality,is the
most amazing thing for those who take that first step -

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin....html&edu=high

On Jul 2, 12:50*pm, oriel36 wrote

Look,the apparent variation of the Sun over the course of an annual
orbit is an illusion just as apparent *planetary retrogrades in
another context are illusions and resolved by taking into account
planetary dynamics...

OK, fine, the sun isn't really moving higher or lower in the sky, it
just appears to do so over the course of the year, I think we can all
agree with this statement. So?

,the cause of the Sun's apparent *variation *is
strictly arising from the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun and
nothing to do with daily rotation or tilt.

Whoa there, Big Guy, the angle between the earth's axis and the axis
normal to the plane of the ecliptic is EXACTLY what causes the sun to
appear higher in northern summer and lower in northern winter, and we
call this the tilt of the axis. Seasons have everything to do with
tilt and revolution about the sun and, like you say, nothing to do
with rotation about our axis. It is not a variable axis WRT to the
fixed stars, at least within the limits of our lifetimes, but is
certainly is variable WRT to sun over the course of a year.

The answer is easy enough to
come to by making planetary comparisons between Uranus and Earth .

Forget about the comparison between the Earth and Uranus for now, your
misinterpretation of the photos is just confusing you no end


In any case,this is linked in with planetary dynamics,climate change
and how global climate cannot be derived as an extension of
weather.Not a chance of getting this up a running when there are two
opposing astrological *frameworks for planetary dynamics of 'sidereal
vs solar time' on one side and a wandering 'analemma' Sun on the
other,both equally vacuous and nonsensical.

The sidereal and solar concepts are not opposing astrological
frameworks at all, they coexist just fine, from the proper
perspective, of course.

Too bad you remain unteachable, you could learn a lot here.

Study this some more, ...

http://www.gardendigest.com/images/methods2.gif

.... work on the scientific method for a while, and give up on the
faith-based crap.

\Paul A