#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
My thanks to Jeff and Jonathon for helping
figure out what Gerald is talking about. wrote in message oups.com... George Dishman wrote: wrote in message ups.com... To George The Earth orbital orientation (designated by the line division between direct sunlight and its orbital shadow) Gerald, there is no indication of sunlight and shadow on the diagram you cite below. The shaded areas are only to illustrate "equal areas". Many do not have a feel for the material yet to others this will need little explaining and they can fill in the numerous different principles without prompting,diagrams or graphics. A large part of the problem is that your descriptions use terms that have little to do with what you are saying. What you are saying is riddled with errors too but the language problem makes it doubly difficult. However, I think we have figured out part of this so let's see if we can get somewhere. The arrows in the diagram representing the change in orbital orientation as the Earth orbits the Sun is designated in reality by the division representing Sunlight and the Earth's orbital shadow. http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth...from_space.jpg The line dividing the sunlight part from that in shadow is called the terminator. What you are calling "orbital orientation" seems to mean the angle of the plane of the terminator to the major axis of the Earth's orbit. The arrows representing the change in orbital orientation from a polar perspective indicate that this motion passing through a fixed axial orientation generates seasonal changes. I guess you mean this diagram http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg The arrows are something else but the rotation of the plane of the terminator is important. It turns on average by slightly less than 1 degree per day due to Kepler's First law (it varies due to Kepler's Second Law). That is 4 minutes per day and is the cause of the difference between the solar day and the sidereal day. The variation resulting from the second law produces one aspect of the EoT. turns in accordance with Kepler's second law over the course of an annual orbit That is too simplistic. The second law only gives the rate at which the Earth moves along the orbital path. The shape of the orbit as an ellipse with the Sun at one focus is given by the _first_ law and it is the motion of the Earth around the Sun first described by Copernicus combined with the fixed tilt of the axis of rotation that produces the seasons. Watch how the Earth moves round the Sun in the animation below. I went through months explaining how the early heliocentrists adapted the equable 24 hour day to indepedent axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in total while you lot swear blind that the value is 23 hours 56 min 04 sec working off the celestial sphere. And I spent months patiently explaining that the two numbers you quote are independent though related through Kepler's First Law. To make them the same, you have to discard Kepler (and Copernicus too of course) and I'm not prepared to do that. You can if you wish, and the fact that you cannot take his First Law into account, but don't expect any astronomers (or me) to do so. I am not doing this again but if you lot can live with hemispherical explanations of axial variations to the orbital plane and the Sun then good for you. You offer no alternative that can explain why it is currently winter in the southern hemisphere. As long as you reject reality, your failed descriptions will be rejected in turn. You spent a year arguing for variations in axial tilt to the Sun for the Equation of Time purposes No, I spent a year telling you that Kepler's First Law explained the difference between the solar and sidereal day, just as I have above yet again. It was mainly others who argued about tilt. They were right but I soon decided you didn't know enough basic astronomy to follow their arguments. and now change your tune but I do not do retail anymore you miserable creep,I can use you to show that insincerity and incompetence is almost pandemic. It only shows you never listened to what I said. It is that change in orbital orientation passing through fixed axial orientation that causes daylight/darkness asymmetry and seasonal changes . That is impossible since it would now be summer in Australia and you have been told it is winter. Why do you insist on demonstrating your ignorance by constantly repeating something that has been proven to be wrong? Listen carefully to this lecture on how Copernicus' model produces the seasons if you want to gain some basic understanding: http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/earth/seas...rthSeasons.asp I do not condescend to anyone, ... That's true, you exhibit nothing but blind arrogance which is no doubt why your understanding never improves, you just keep trotting out the same old errors. Well if you are so convinced you know it all, my challenge remains, explain why it is now winter in Australia but summer here in the UK. George |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ... In message .com, writes I went through months explaining how the early heliocentrists adapted the equable 24 hour day to indepedent axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in total while you lot swear blind that the value is 23 hours 56 min 04 sec working off the celestial sphere. I am not doing this again I think you just did :-) Yet again, 23 hours 56 minutes in one sidereal day, 24 hours in one solar day to allow for a little extra rotation as the Earth goes round the Sun. It couldn't be simpler. The funny thing is, if I understand what he means by orbital orientation, he has been posting the diagram that proves you right while writing underneath that it proves you wrong. George |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ... ... George, I think whatever is posting has failed the Turing test. It just posts the same irrelevant links over and over again. Like an ELIZA program that has gone outside its parameters :-) Does it count if you write a version that randomly picks a great scientist and then posts: "See what author wrote: quote You are a geocentrist|empiricist and a theorist|cartographer if you disagree." Georgebot (Mk IV) |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message .com, writes Nothing new. You aren't even trying to answer my points, so I see no point in continuing this conversation - highly appropriate, as "Hal could pass the Turing test with ease". The Sun is currently high in my sky, so I'm going to enjoy this result of the Earth's axial inclination :-) I am sure there are many people concerned with climate imbalances and especially how much contemporary civilisation contributes too that change in order to correct it or at least leave the planet in better shape for our kids and future generations. No doubt you see the Sun high in the sky in summer and low in winter but for astronomers there is no axial tilt variation because of one very specific orientation - Polaris http://www.wainscoat.com/astronomy/cfht-trails.jpg The early heliocentrists filtered out axial motion and orientation and discerned heliocentricity by isolating the Earth's orbital motion against the other planets and especially the resolution for retrograde motion through the faster Earth taking an inner heliocentric orbital circuit. http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...turn_retro.gif There is no axial tilt variation and even if you see the Sun high in the sky in summer and low in winter,this is just a hemispherical illusion due to a change in orbital orientation. You just do not have a feel for the material,but as climate changes are important it would be wonderful to see somebody cut the rubbish and start to correct the matter for knowing axial orientation is fixed is common sense. BTW,I can do no more,if you cannot figure out that orbital orientation changes against fixed axial orientation (Polaris) then I cannot reduce this principle any further. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message .com, writes Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message .com, writes Nothing new. You aren't even trying to answer my points, so I see no point in continuing this conversation - highly appropriate, as "Hal could pass the Turing test with ease". The Sun is currently high in my sky, so I'm going to enjoy this result of the Earth's axial inclination :-) I am sure there are many people concerned with climate imbalances and especially how much contemporary civilisation contributes too that change in order to correct it or at least leave the planet in better shape for our kids and future generations. No doubt you see the Sun high in the sky in summer and low in winter but for astronomers there is no axial tilt variation 0/10 for reading comprehension. No-one is saying that the axial tilt varies. And I'm fairly sure that George is right about your use of the phrase "orbital orientation", so there's no need for argument there. But I'm sure you'll still be arguing about sidereal vs. solar time, and retrograde motion, about which you don't seem to have a clue. There are unfortunately many people like you,in fact the vast majority of people dealing with climate change and even cyclical seasonal variations,are working off axial tilt as a consequence of the awful maneuvering of 18th century cataloguers. You and many others have received an education that no person has in the last 300 years insofar as the contemporary explanations for daylight/darkness asymmetry and consequently seasonal variations are attributed to axial tilt to the orbital plane based on an inappropriate introduction of a axial tilt component by 18th century cataloguers. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980116c.html You are welcome to you Sun high in the sky but it will not be due to axial tilt variation to the orbital plane,the change is due solely to the change in orbital orientation of the Earth as the Earth orbits the Sun passing through fixed axial orientation. Again,you have no feeling for the material and the way to organise motions and orientations but it is people like you that humanity trusts with climate imbalance when you cannot even give the correct attribution for seasonal variations.Whatever perverse satisfaction the whole lot of you get from ruining the work of the early heliocentrists it remains for me to discover just how rotten it has become. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big dumb rockets vs. small dumb rockets | Andrew Nowicki | Policy | 28 | February 10th 05 12:55 AM |
Dumb SS1 questions | Henry Spencer | Technology | 23 | July 9th 04 07:08 PM |
Probably Dumb Questions | John | Research | 49 | May 6th 04 09:01 AM |
A Couple of Dumb Dew-Heater Questions | Craig Levine | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | January 25th 04 02:25 AM |
sub-amateur has dumb questions | paul beard | Amateur Astronomy | 16 | August 27th 03 10:34 PM |