Sunrise

On Jan 31, 6:35*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...
On Jan 31, 11:36 am, "Androcles" wrote:









"Ben" wrote in message

....
On Jan 30, 3:38 pm, Brian Tung wrote:

Ben wrote:
You could call it the "Sole ostinato" ( stubborn Sun) and attribute
the term to Piazzi or someone. I'm confident Piazzi never used the
term - but he should have.

Ben

How about "clessidral skew"? (Clessidra is Italian for
"hourglass," which refers in this case both to the passing
of time and the shape of an annual graph of daytime--see,
for instance, the insert in the January issues of Sky and
Telescope.)

Hey that's good! Or you might call it "Clessidral slip" since
it depends on a certain misalignment of the apsides.

I like that....

Ben
========================================
Lissajous figu
http://tinyurl.com/6lje79x

I like that too except it's a mathematical object that I'm not
very familiar with. *What is the significance of **delta* in the
notation.

Also is it really a Lissajous figure if it's asymmetrical? *Or does
the latitude of the observer skew the Lissajous into an
*affine transformation*?

Ben
======================================
Does the analemma lie on a plane? Pictures and diagrams
are merely an aid to understanding, sculpture is better.
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

Good work on your website. I especially liked the Latin quote,
"Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes
vident." ( Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants see more
than the giants themselves.) Now I know where Hawking got
the title of his recent anthology *On the Shoulders of Giants*.


On a Mercator projection the path of the ISS is a sinusoid.
*http://home.tiscali.nl/mysteryship/s...ly_mission.jpg
In reality it is a great circle with the Earth turning beneath it.
*http://www.challenger.org/programs/i.../wtoearth2.jpg
Rubik designed his cube to encourage people to think in 3D.
The planar model is not the reality. The Lissajous is a planar model.
The hourglass is the reality, the figure 8 is the projection of the
hourglass
onto a plane.

I am of the opinion that the planar model is just as real as the
hourglass itself. Even though it's a graphic artifact it seems to
be a real graphic artifact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curves

Ben

"Ben" wrote in message
...
On Jan 31, 6:35 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...
On Jan 31, 11:36 am, "Androcles" wrote:









"Ben" wrote in message

...
On Jan 30, 3:38 pm, Brian Tung wrote:

Ben wrote:
You could call it the "Sole ostinato" ( stubborn Sun) and attribute
the term to Piazzi or someone. I'm confident Piazzi never used the
term - but he should have.

Ben

How about "clessidral skew"? (Clessidra is Italian for
"hourglass," which refers in this case both to the passing
of time and the shape of an annual graph of daytime--see,
for instance, the insert in the January issues of Sky and
Telescope.)

Hey that's good! Or you might call it "Clessidral slip" since
it depends on a certain misalignment of the apsides.

I like that....

Ben
========================================
Lissajous figu
http://tinyurl.com/6lje79x

I like that too except it's a mathematical object that I'm not
very familiar with. What is the significance of *delta* in the
notation.

Also is it really a Lissajous figure if it's asymmetrical? Or does
the latitude of the observer skew the Lissajous into an
*affine transformation*?

Ben
======================================
Does the analemma lie on a plane? Pictures and diagrams
are merely an aid to understanding, sculpture is better.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

Good work on your website. I especially liked the Latin quote,
"Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes
vident." ( Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants see more
than the giants themselves.) Now I know where Hawking got
the title of his recent anthology *On the Shoulders of Giants*.


On a Mercator projection the path of the ISS is a sinusoid.
http://home.tiscali.nl/mysteryship/s...ly_mission.jpg
In reality it is a great circle with the Earth turning beneath it.
http://www.challenger.org/programs/i.../wtoearth2.jpg
Rubik designed his cube to encourage people to think in 3D.
The planar model is not the reality. The Lissajous is a planar model.
The hourglass is the reality, the figure 8 is the projection of the
hourglass
onto a plane.

I am of the opinion that the planar model is just as real as the
hourglass itself. Even though it's a graphic artifact it seems to
be a real graphic artifact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curves

Ben
=======================================
Oh well, if you are going to resort to wackypedia then the
opinion of the majority is Mary was a virgin and the Easter
Bunny lays chocolate eggs.

On Feb 1, 3:34*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...
On Jan 31, 6:35 pm, "Androcles" wrote:









"Ben" wrote in message

...
On Jan 31, 11:36 am, "Androcles" wrote:

"Ben" wrote in message

....
On Jan 30, 3:38 pm, Brian Tung wrote:

Ben wrote:
You could call it the "Sole ostinato" ( stubborn Sun) and attribute
the term to Piazzi or someone. I'm confident Piazzi never used the
term - but he should have.

Ben

How about "clessidral skew"? (Clessidra is Italian for
"hourglass," which refers in this case both to the passing
of time and the shape of an annual graph of daytime--see,
for instance, the insert in the January issues of Sky and
Telescope.)

Hey that's good! Or you might call it "Clessidral slip" since
it depends on a certain misalignment of the apsides.

I like that....

Ben
========================================
Lissajous figu
http://tinyurl.com/6lje79x

I like that too except it's a mathematical object that I'm not
very familiar with. What is the significance of *delta* in the
notation.

Also is it really a Lissajous figure if it's asymmetrical? Or does
the latitude of the observer skew the Lissajous into an
*affine transformation*?

Ben
======================================
Does the analemma lie on a plane? Pictures and diagrams
are merely an aid to understanding, sculpture is better.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

Good work on your website. *I especially liked the Latin quote,
"Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes
vident." *( Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants see more
than the giants themselves.) * Now I know where Hawking got
the title of his recent anthology *On the Shoulders of Giants*.

On a Mercator projection the path of the ISS is a sinusoid.
http://home.tiscali.nl/mysteryship/s...ly_mission.jpg
In reality it is a great circle with the Earth turning beneath it.
http://www.challenger.org/programs/i.../wtoearth2.jpg
Rubik designed his cube to encourage people to think in 3D.
The planar model is not the reality. The Lissajous is a planar model.
The hourglass is the reality, the figure 8 is the projection of the
hourglass
onto a plane.

I am of the opinion that the planar model is just as real as the
hourglass itself. *Even though it's a graphic artifact it seems to
be a real graphic artifact.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curves

Ben
=======================================
Oh well, if you are going to resort to wackypedia then the
opinion of the majority is Mary was a virgin and the Easter
Bunny lays chocolate eggs.

Mary was a virgin 'til she got porked. I don't know about the
Easter eggs.

On Jan 30, 3:55*pm, Mike Collins wrote:

Only the gullible believe that demonstrable facts easily understood by
primary school children are a hoax.

What does he mean when he says the analemma is a hoax?

Basically, there seem to be two strains in his thinking.

He feels that the analemma, although real - he acknowleges the
Equation of Time as true and important, and he acknowledges the Sun's
declination at noon changes with the seasons (although he says that
the length of the day, not the angle of the Sun's rays, is what makes
summer warm and winter cold) - is _misleading_. (So his choice of the
word "hoax" is confusing.) For these two reasons:

1) The Earth orbits the Sun. So the center of the Earth is not fixed
relative to the fixed stars. Thus, gauging the Earth's rotation
relative to the fixed stars, thus ignoring stellar parallax, is
*illegitimate* in an astronomical sense - it marks a reversion to
geocentric astronomy, and a rejection of Copernicus.

2) Assigning paramount importance to the regular beat of the pendulum
clock or the quartz crystal, rather than the movement of the Sun in
the sky, in the definition of time, is wrong. Which is why the leap
second is "pretentious".

Celestial mechanics, based on treating the motions of the planets like
those of so many billiard balls or cannonballs, according to Earth-
bound laws of mechanics, plus Newton's inverse square law of gravity,
which uses this scale of time as a basis, is an exercise in impiety
(and presumably so is astrophysics).

The heavens are a Heavenly realm, not an Earthly realm, and should be
admired, not analyzed, by true astronomers!

Furthermore, the 24-hour mechanical clock reflects a timekeeping
average of solar time, and so it's derived from solar time. Thus,
trying to use mechanical clock time as a basis for an explanation of
solar time and the Equation of Time is circular reasoning!

***

That is, as best as I currently understand it, the basis of his
reasoning. Of course it's badly flawed.

One doesn't expect to see God and His angels through a telescope -
such an ambition is what is impious. The distant galaxies are still
part of the mundane physical world. But I suppose the story of the
Tower of Babel implies otherwise.

In order to "average" the length of days in mechanical clock time, one
has to have a mechanical clock first. Only the size of the second, not
the scale of time itself, derives from the solar day.

Bad science and bad theology have united to produce his world view.

John Savard

"Ben" wrote in message
...
On Feb 1, 3:34 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...
On Jan 31, 6:35 pm, "Androcles" wrote:









"Ben" wrote in message

...
On Jan 31, 11:36 am, "Androcles" wrote:

"Ben" wrote in message

...
On Jan 30, 3:38 pm, Brian Tung wrote:

Ben wrote:
You could call it the "Sole ostinato" ( stubborn Sun) and
attribute
the term to Piazzi or someone. I'm confident Piazzi never used the
term - but he should have.

Ben

How about "clessidral skew"? (Clessidra is Italian for
"hourglass," which refers in this case both to the passing
of time and the shape of an annual graph of daytime--see,
for instance, the insert in the January issues of Sky and
Telescope.)

Hey that's good! Or you might call it "Clessidral slip" since
it depends on a certain misalignment of the apsides.

I like that....

Ben
========================================
Lissajous figu
http://tinyurl.com/6lje79x

I like that too except it's a mathematical object that I'm not
very familiar with. What is the significance of *delta* in the
notation.

Also is it really a Lissajous figure if it's asymmetrical? Or does
the latitude of the observer skew the Lissajous into an
*affine transformation*?

Ben
======================================
Does the analemma lie on a plane? Pictures and diagrams
are merely an aid to understanding, sculpture is better.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

Good work on your website. I especially liked the Latin quote,
"Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes
vident." ( Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants see more
than the giants themselves.) Now I know where Hawking got
the title of his recent anthology *On the Shoulders of Giants*.

The quote actually dates from the 1200's. Newton used it in the 1600's
when Hooke called him a dwarf.

On a Mercator projection the path of the ISS is a sinusoid.
http://home.tiscali.nl/mysteryship/s...ly_mission.jpg
In reality it is a great circle with the Earth turning beneath it.
http://www.challenger.org/programs/i.../wtoearth2.jpg
Rubik designed his cube to encourage people to think in 3D.
The planar model is not the reality. The Lissajous is a planar model.
The hourglass is the reality, the figure 8 is the projection of the
hourglass
onto a plane.

I am of the opinion that the planar model is just as real as the
hourglass itself. Even though it's a graphic artifact it seems to
be a real graphic artifact.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curves

Ben
=======================================
Oh well, if you are going to resort to wackypedia then the
opinion of the majority is Mary was a virgin and the Easter
Bunny lays chocolate eggs.

Mary was a virgin 'til she got porked. I don't know about the
Easter eggs.
===========================================
The first explanation given is always the right one. Where else
could chocolate eggs come from if not laid by the Easter Bunny?

Wackypedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
lists:


1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof

Not included:

11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "I'm smarter than you, so there!" (proof by bluster).
17 Proof by "read a text book" (proof by bluster revision 2).

and the ultimate counter proof:

18 Proof by "You're'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).


Proof 18 is my favorite, I use it often. It is very effective when used
against proofs 11-17. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me
defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-17 and I have to bite
the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do
at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind).

One of the nicer perspectives of the orbital behavior of a planet, and
by association our planet, must be the orbital turning of Uranus to
the central Sun and probably easier to grasp the orbital turning of
the Earth with the polar coordinates acting like a beacon for the
Earth's orbital behavior.

Switching from the graphic to the sequence of images,as it with the
previous sequence of Uranus clearly shows how a planet turns to the
central Sun arising from its orbital motin and separate to the daily
rotation of a planet -

http://www.simpletoremember.com/imag...ds/erthaxs.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0909...riedman900.jpg

We owe it to ourselves to expand on our imaging capabilities and
provide a more reasoned explanation for the seasons and the natural
noon cycle by introduction a very simple quasi-rotation to the
central Sun arising from the orbital motion of a planet.

One of the nicer perspectives of the orbital behavior of a planet, and
by association our planet, must be the orbital turning of Saturn to
the central Sun and probably easier to grasp the orbital turning of
the Earth with the polar coordinates acting like a beacon for the
Earth's orbital behavior.

Switching from the graphic to the sequence of images,as it with the
previous sequence of Uranus clearly shows how a planet turns to the
central Sun arising from its orbital motin and separate to the daily
rotation of a planet -

http://www.simpletoremember.com/imag...ds/erthaxs.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0909...riedman900.jpg

We owe it to ourselves to expand on our imaging capabilities and
provide a more reasoned explanation for the seasons and the natural
noon cycle by introduction a very simple quasi-rotation to the
central Sun arising from the orbital motion of a planet.

On Feb 2, 5:19*pm, oriel36 wrote:
One of the nicer perspectives of the orbital behavior of a planet, and
by association our planet, must be the orbital turning of Uranus to
the central Sun and probably easier to grasp the orbital turning of
the Earth with the polar coordinates acting like a beacon for the
Earth's orbital behavior.

Switching from the graphic to the sequence of images,as it with the
previous sequence of Uranus clearly shows how a planet turns to the
central Sun arising from its orbital motin and separate to the daily
rotation of a planet -

http://www.simpletoremember.com/imag...ds/erthaxs.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0909...riedman900.jpg

We owe it to ourselves to expand on our imaging capabilities and
provide a more reasoned explanation for the seasons and the natural
noon cycle by introduction a very simple quasi-rotation *to the
central Sun arising from the orbital motion of a planet.

Excuse the typo,the images of Saturn and its rings turning to the
central Sun act as a expression of the same change as the Earth moves
along its orbital circumference hence the need to get rid of 'axial
precession' as it is currently understood and replace it with the
introduction of an orbital component -

http://www.simpletoremember.com/imag...ds/erthaxs.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0909...riedman900.jpg

This is as large a modification as readers are likely to see and there
is not the slightest trace of vanity in this.Far from the debacle of
global warming and the alarmism it created,here is astronomy and
climate at its purest and simply fun to assemble with some effort and
a new way to mesh the explanation for the seasons with variations in
the natural noon cycle.