Astronomers,amateur or otherwise.

There are actual images of the Earth from space which show a more
complicated explanation for variations in daylight/darkness throughout
the year -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTrYVBcx9s

The present explanations using graphics from Solstice to Equinox based
on variable 'axial tilt' are almost monstrous where the rotational
orientation of the Earth 'straightens' up to split the circle of
illumination -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taHTA...eature=related

It is absolutely disconcerting to come across a people calling
themselves astronomers who can'y adjust to information pouring in from
images of Uranus and the Earth from space,animation and graphics to
demonstrate how a location will behave orbitally as it orbits the Sun
and quite apart from axial rotation.

All these fine people working on climate modelling and it is useless
if they can't even explain variations in daylight/darkness let alone
the seasonal weather patterns attached to them.I have no idea what is
needed to break this drowsy condition where nothing is being done,not
for any sake of urgency but that the actual explanation for the
seasons is absolutely enjoyable after a small initial effort.

It is a 100% geometric certainty that a location on Earth turns
through 360 degrees with respect to the central Sun over the course
of an annual orbit and replacing the pseudo-dynamic of variable tilt
and its absence of any 360 degree feature.If this modification of
Copernican reasoning does not happen then astronomy is truly finished
for generations .

I am still not convinced that posting minor variations of the same
material many times to the same group is the best way to get your
ideas accepted.

If the concept is, as you seem to be saying, both easy to understand
and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream
publication is the way to go?

Please explain in detail why this has not been done or if it has been
done what happened.

Thank you.

ukastronomy wrote:
I am still not convinced that posting minor variations of the same
material many times to the same group is the best way to get your
ideas accepted.

If the concept is, as you seem to be saying, both easy to understand
and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream
publication is the way to go?

Please explain in detail why this has not been done or if it has been
done what happened.

Thank you.

I'm assuming he feels he has no peers.

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT), ukastronomy
wrote:

I am still not convinced that posting minor variations of the same
material many times to the same group is the best way to get your
ideas accepted.

No, the best way to do that would be to post acceptable ideas. And
there's no sign that's going to happen!
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Mar 30, 1:52*pm, ukastronomy
wrote:
I am still not convinced that posting minor variations of the same
material many times to the same group is the best way to get your
ideas accepted.


It is a 100% geometric certainty that variable axial inclination is
not the cause of variations in daylight/darkness over the course of a
year and it is with the same certainty that I present the actual
cause of why people in the Northern hemisphere are experiencing longer
periods of daylight while their counterparts in the Southern
hemisphere are experiencing less.

Unless you want to congratulate yourself that you know what causes day
and night via axial rotation,I assure you that the present explanation
for variations in day and night do not work and while Copernicus
explained the cause in terms of variable axial/equatorial
inclination,that explanation has to be modified completely -

"..the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of
days and nights would be observed."
Copernicus Chapter 11 De Revolutionibus



If the concept is, as you seem to be saying, both easy to understand
and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream
publication is the way to go?


It is so easy to understand using just a simple animation and its
planetary graphical counterpart that I am bewildered that nobody has
yet to find it enjoyable much less get a stamp of approval -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV9WkQkUHZ4

http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/...13/FG13_06.jpg

The rotational orientation of Uranus is just useful for explaining
what occurs for any given location on Earth by isolating orbital
motion and its characteristics.A person just processes the orbital
motion seperately to axial rotation and concludes that a location
turns 360 degrees to the central Sun as an orbital component.


Please explain in detail why this has not been done or if it has been
done what happened.

Thank you.

The mess was created a few centuries ago by tying everything to axial
co-ordinates and introducing a fictional analemma based on using
variable inclination to the Sun to explain the Equation of Time
variations in the natural noon cycle -

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

The variations in the natural noon cycles are due to the global
orbital change in orientation of a location to the Sun allied with
constant axial rotation and natural noon as a benchmark just as I have
explained before and this ridiculous axial tilting Earth/analemma as
a means to explain the natural noon cycles is more of the same solar/
sidereal time trash that is preventing appreciation of the actual
mechanism derived from the motions of the Earth.

The same scientists who introduce urgency into climate discussions on
a global scale do not have a basic handle on what causes seasonal
variations in daylight and darkness let alone the more complex
hemispherical weather patterns insofar as the original explanation of
variable axial/equatorial inclination is still being utilised.If a
community cannot be trusted to explain simple seasonal effects then
they certainly cannot be trusted with long term climate modelling.

On Mar 30, 2:54*pm, "
wrote:
ukastronomy wrote:
I am still not convinced that posting minor variations of the same
material many times to the same group is the best way to get your
ideas accepted.

If the concept is, as you seem to be saying, both easy to understand
and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream
publication is the way to go?

Please explain in detail why this has not been done or if it has been
done what happened.

Thank you.

I'm assuming he feels he has no peers.

Here is what you do - go over to sci.physics.relativity and look at
the discussions about dark matter falling into a black hole or some
other thread and I will tell you that it has about as much substance
as speculating what would happen to the roadrunner if the coyote
caught up with him.These are your peers and if you find comfort in
warped space, multiverses ,dark this and that,time travel and all the
other conceptual junk dumped into the astronomical arena then good for
you.

All I wish to discuss is how variations in daylight and darkness occur
due to the motions and orientation of our planet and that the
variation is due to an orbital component.Most will not get it while a
few most certainly will grasp that treating orbital motion seperately
will lead to a satisfactory conclusion and working principle.

On Mar 30, 3:04*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT), ukastronomy

wrote:
I am still not convinced that posting minor variations of the same
material many times to the same group is the best way to get your
ideas accepted.

No, the best way to do that would be to post acceptable ideas. And
there's no sign that's going to happen!
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com


Here you go Chris,even you should get the idea that seasonal changes
are due to the way the Earth orbits the Sun -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV9WkQkUHZ4

http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/...13/FG13_06.jpg

Axial rotation generates rotational orientation/tilt and does nothing
else so you cannot say that Uranus tilts through a full 360 degrees
with respect to the Sun over an annual orbit ,what you conclude is
that as a location turns through 360 degrees with respect to the
central Sun as part of its orbital motion and leave axial rotation
and orientation seperate.Then you go on to appreciate why there are
enormous hemispherical variations in daylight/darkness on Uranus
while the Earth it is less so,the principles are the same for both.

So Chris,if a teenager asks you a question relating to how a planet
orbits the Sun,like a car circling a traffic island or like a
crankshaft where the pin is constant changing to the central shaft at
least you know the answer now.It is a shame that NOAA would allow this
new perspective to drift but that is beyond my control.

On Mar 30, 12:52 pm, ukastronomy
wrote:
I am still not convinced that posting minor variations of the same
material many times to the same group is the best way to get your
ideas accepted.

If the concept is, as you seem to be saying, both easy to understand
and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream
publication is the way to go?

Please explain in detail why this has not been done or if it has been
done what happened.

Thank you.

It is to be hoped you take your own advice, although the humour value
inherent in the irony was appreciated.

On Mar 30, 12:52 pm, ukastronomy
wrote:
I am still not convinced that posting minor variations of the same
material many times to the same group is the best way to get your
ideas accepted.

If the concept is, as you seem to be saying, both easy to understand
and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream
publication is the way to go?

Please explain in detail why this has not been done or if it has been
done what happened.

Thank you.

It is to be hoped that you take your own advice. However, the humour
value inherent in the irony was appreciated.

Sorry oriel36 but you are still just posting minor variations of the
same old material.

If the concept is, as you seem to be saying, both easy to understand
and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream
publication is the way to go? Please explain in detail why this has
not been done or if it has been done what happened.