Tilt/Inclination and climate

"OG" wrote in message ...

On 12/01/2014 21:48, Lord Androcles wrote:


"OG" wrote in message ...

On 12/01/2014 18:16, Lord Androcles wrote:


"OG" wrote in message ...

On 12/01/2014 17:40, Lord Androcles wrote:


"OG" wrote in message ...

On 12/01/2014 15:02, Lord Androcles wrote:


"OG" wrote in message ...
So - to summarise.
I asked you to clarify exactly what you meant when you used 2 terms
"Perihelion" and "its ellipse" with regard to the Earth's orbit.

Are you happy with a definition of 'perihelion' as a unique point on
the
Earth's orbit of minimum separation between the Earth and the Sun. With
it being the position of minimum distance, the locus and the line to
the
focus will be perpendicular.

Also, as far as I can tell, you are content that the Earth's orbit can
be reasonably described as a composite of 2 ellipses.

Please let me know if any of this is contentious.
============================================

I've already summarised.
Show that the composite of two ellipses produces only one perihelion
and perihelion is when the Moon is full for one of them, Astrologer
Gwynne.

Ermm, tell you what.
I'll show that perihelion dates can be calculated using the above
principles and that they aren't separated by 365 and 1/4 days as you
repeatedly claimed.
================================================== =======
Ermm, no, as far as you can tell (which isn't very far at all) I'm not
ermm interested in ermm dates without ermm positions.
Ermm show that the composite of two ellipses produces ermm only one ermm
perihelion
and ermm perihelion is when the ermm Moon is ermm full for ermm one of
them, ermm Astrologer Gwynne.
Full for one of what?

=================================
Ermm one of your ermm two ellipses that produce a composite ermm orbit.

And why your obsession that the moon must full at perihelion?
=================================

Ermm if the ermm moon is ermm full then it must be ermm further from the
ermm Sun than the ermm Earth is.

That's not a necessary condition for perihelion though. Do you think it
should be?
================================================== ===========
Ermm if the ermm moon is ermm full then it must be ermm further from the
ermm Sun than the ermm Earth is.

Bzzt repetition. Still irrelevant.

Simple facts can only be called "obsession" by a lunatic.
And why your obsessions with dates and questions?
Never mind, don't answer that, consult your crystal ball, Astrologer
Gwynne.
Then try to concentrate on what you've been asked to do, or admit you
can't
do it.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
=======================================
Asking more questions and still giving no answers, Gwynne?
Didn't you claim to have an obsession to "best" me?
Do what you've been asked to do or admit you can't.

I can't prove something that isn't true so I'll just have to prove that
what you have said is incorrect.wrong.

=========================================
Go on then, prove it isn't true. I claim you can't do that either.
Note: finding a special case isn't a proof or disproof for the general case.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

"OG" wrote in message ...

On 12/01/2014 21:48, Lord Androcles wrote:


"OG" wrote in message ...

On 12/01/2014 18:16, Lord Androcles wrote:


"OG" wrote in message ...

On 12/01/2014 17:40, Lord Androcles wrote:


"OG" wrote in message ...

On 12/01/2014 15:02, Lord Androcles wrote:


"OG" wrote in message ...
So - to summarise.
I asked you to clarify exactly what you meant when you used 2 terms
"Perihelion" and "its ellipse" with regard to the Earth's orbit.

Are you happy with a definition of 'perihelion' as a unique point on
the
Earth's orbit of minimum separation between the Earth and the Sun. With
it being the position of minimum distance, the locus and the line to
the
focus will be perpendicular.

Also, as far as I can tell, you are content that the Earth's orbit can
be reasonably described as a composite of 2 ellipses.

Please let me know if any of this is contentious.
============================================

I've already summarised.
Show that the composite of two ellipses produces only one perihelion
and perihelion is when the Moon is full for one of them, Astrologer
Gwynne.

Ermm, tell you what.
I'll show that perihelion dates can be calculated using the above
principles and that they aren't separated by 365 and 1/4 days as you
repeatedly claimed.
================================================== =======
Ermm, no, as far as you can tell (which isn't very far at all) I'm not
ermm interested in ermm dates without ermm positions.
Ermm show that the composite of two ellipses produces ermm only one ermm
perihelion
and ermm perihelion is when the ermm Moon is ermm full for ermm one of
them, ermm Astrologer Gwynne.
Full for one of what?

=================================
Ermm one of your ermm two ellipses that produce a composite ermm orbit.

And why your obsession that the moon must full at perihelion?
=================================

Ermm if the ermm moon is ermm full then it must be ermm further from the
ermm Sun than the ermm Earth is.

That's not a necessary condition for perihelion though. Do you think it
should be?
================================================== ===========
Ermm if the ermm moon is ermm full then it must be ermm further from the
ermm Sun than the ermm Earth is.

Bzzt repetition. Still irrelevant.

Simple facts can only be called "obsession" by a lunatic.
And why your obsessions with dates and questions?
Never mind, don't answer that, consult your crystal ball, Astrologer
Gwynne.
Then try to concentrate on what you've been asked to do, or admit you
can't
do it.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
=======================================
Asking more questions and still giving no answers, Gwynne?
Didn't you claim to have an obsession to "best" me?
Do what you've been asked to do or admit you can't.

I can't prove something that isn't true so I'll just have to prove that
what you have said is incorrect.wrong.

=========================================
Go on then, prove it isn't true. I claim you can't do that either.
Note: finding a special case isn't a proof or disproof for the general case.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway