South pole rescue

http://www.nature.com/news/daring-an...h-pole-1.20135

When the rescue was made there was almost daylight conditions at the South pole insofar as there was also a rare full moon on the June Solstice and although greatly diminished, the light of the moon still affects conditions presently -

http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm

Someone thanked me for explaining that if daily rotation is subtracted that the entire surface of the planet turns once as a function of its orbital motion so that the North and South poles act as windows into that surface rotation and responsible for the single polar day/night cycle.

The South pole rescue was not as dramatic as some would have it due to astronomical conditions present .

oriel36 wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/daring-an...h-pole-1.20135

When the rescue was made there was almost daylight conditions at the
South pole insofar as there was also a rare full moon on the June
Solstice and although greatly diminished, the light of the moon still
affects conditions presently -

http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm

Someone thanked me for explaining that if daily rotation is subtracted
that the entire surface of the planet turns once as a function of its
orbital motion so that the North and South poles act as windows into that
surface rotation and responsible for the single polar day/night cycle.

The South pole rescue was not as dramatic as some would have it due to
astronomical conditions present .



That someone won't thank you when he finds you lied to him.

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:

Someone thanked me for explaining that if daily rotation is subtracted that the
entire surface of the planet turns once as a function of its orbital motion so
that the North and South poles act as windows into that surface rotation and
responsible for the single polar day/night cycle.

Then, in that case, if the rotation of the entire surface once (per year) as a function of its orbital motion is subtracted,

then we find that the daily rotation which remains leads to about 366 1/4 rotations per year instead of 365 1/4 rotations per year (the reason subtracting orbital rotation *adds* a rotation, so that you have one more rotation instead of one less, is because both the Earth's orbit and its rotation are counter-clockwise when viewed from the North),

so that the Earth's intrinsic rotation, the rotation that is not contributed by orbital motion, has a period of

23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

John Savard

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 8:08:22 PM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:

Someone thanked me for explaining that if daily rotation is subtracted that the entire surface of the planet turns once as a function of its orbital motion so that the North and South poles act as windows into that surface rotation and responsible for the single polar day/night cycle.

Gerald: [after 45 minutes of nonsensical verbiage]: "..and there I must end my explanation."

Victim: "Thank you!"

The original explanation given by Copernicus in the Commentariolius was correct but he sacrificed this explanation to account for the Precession of the Equinoxes in De Revolutionibus -

"The third is the motion in declination. For, the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the Grand Orb's axis, but is inclined [to it at an angle that intercepts] a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2°. Therefore, while the earth's center always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of a circle of the Grand Orb, the earth's poles rotate, both of them describing small circles about centers [lying on a line that moves] parallel to the Grand Orb's axis." Copernicus, Commentariolus

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...precession.svg

A more effective graphic would include an additional circle at the South pole so that they would be connected by lines running parallel with the planet's circle of illumnation which in turn are at right angles to the orbital plane -

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/...mericas250.jpg

Unlike the moon which doesn't rotate as a function of its orbital motion around the Earth, the Earth does rotate as a function of its orbital motion around the Sun and the poles are a window into this surface rotation normally swamped by daily rotation.

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 12:27:10 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/daring-an...h-pole-1.20135

When the rescue was made there was almost daylight conditions at the
South pole insofar as there was also a rare full moon on the June
Solstice and although greatly diminished, the light of the moon still
affects conditions presently -

http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm

Someone thanked me for explaining that if daily rotation is subtracted
that the entire surface of the planet turns once as a function of its
orbital motion so that the North and South poles act as windows into that
surface rotation and responsible for the single polar day/night cycle.

The South pole rescue was not as dramatic as some would have it due to
astronomical conditions present .



That someone won't thank you when he finds you lied to him.

Some people in the UK are waking up to a backward looking, nostaligia driven older group who can't adapt and influence the future for the younger generations . It showed in your utterly stupid notion that the Shannon river in Ireland was part of the British isles and therefore Ireland was somehow part of Great Britain . National identity is one thing and I respect that the British have fought to maintain that identity (regardless of Remain/Leave) however the bigger picture would have required a challenge and not burying heads in the past. You and the rest here do it day in and day out as you live out the glories of a past that was as counter-productive,lifeless and lacked creativity/productivity than any ideological group in human history.

The reality is that the Earth, irrespective of of national identities or political ideologies, has two distinct day/night cycles and two distinct surface rotations to the Sun behind them. This is good, it is productive and has all the creative dynamics to drag people out of stodgy old ideologies which temporarily reduced astronomy to ruins.

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 8:36:33 AM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:

Unlike the moon which doesn't rotate as a function of its orbital motion around the Earth

That's odd, since the Sun rises and sets on the Moon.

If the Moon is not rotating as a function of its orbital motion around the Earth, why does the Sun rise and set?

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 9:41:14 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 8:36:33 AM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:

Unlike the moon which doesn't rotate as a function of its orbital motion around the Earth

That's odd, since the Sun rises and sets on the Moon.

If the Moon is not rotating as a function of its orbital motion around the Earth, why does the Sun rise and set?

I am trying to be as kind to you as humanly possible but it is not possible for me to descend to a level where your only attribute is that you can spell words.

The moon neither rotates to the Sun nor the Earth and its day/night cycle is so obvious that it doesn't require further qualification other than the images which dictate its appearance from the Earth or on the moon itself -

http://www.moonconnection.com/images...es_diagram.jpg

This is not about intellectual anarchy of a 'rotating moon', it is exclusively about the fact that the Earth does rotate as a function of its orbital motion and why there is a single day/night cycle at the North and South poles.

At the South pole station, weather permitting, observers can see the moon orbit the Earth for a continuous period and watch the phases evolve unencumbered by the daily rotation of the Earth -

http://www.moongiant.com/phase/today/

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 10:18:31 AM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:

The moon neither rotates to the Sun nor the Earth and its day/night cycle is so obvious that it doesn't require further qualification other than the images which dictate its appearance from the Earth or on the moon itself -

What is obvious is that the moon rotates once with respect to the Sun once every orbit of the Earth. Full moon - the face that faces us also faces the Sun. New Moon - the face that faces us faces away from the Sun.

How can it get from Full to New without rotating? You are wrong again, obviously.