Tilt/Inclination and climate

On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 1:09:41 PM UTC, OG wrote:
On 25/12/2013 13:05, oriel36 wrote:

On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 12:38:22 PM UTC, OG wrote:

On 25/12/2013 12:33, oriel36 wrote:







You're avoiding answering the question about what your so called



"equatorial climate" means for Venus aren't you?



For a person unable to appreciate the Earth's double sunrise/sunset it wouldn't matter anyway.As Venus has little over a 2 degree inclination then the planet doesn't experience any appreciable differences in surface weather across latitudes over the course of its annual cycle



The spirit of Christmas is not just to exchange gifts but to give to people who cannot give anything in return or are even hostile to the gift. This gift is made possible by contemporary imaging -



http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/11/video/b/





Ah, you really don't have a clue do you.

Surely you are not mistaken that I am trying to convince you of a double sunrise/sunset that is easily extracted from those images of Uranus and from there into the common cause of the seasons and why the 1461 natural noon cycles vary across 4 orbital circuits.

The South to North daily rotation of Uranus to the central Sun is as spectacular as the East to West surface rotation at its annual rate of roughly 4 degrees per Earth year -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFaoq3UMhBM

So people will eventually get familiar with the Earth's dual sunrises and sunsets from separate causes,one occurring within a 24 hour period and the other sunrise/sunset taking happening once a year and really well known at the Earth's poles as a matter of course.

I can't stop people from turning away however those who stay and enjoy what 21st century technology places in front of them will emerge into a stream of discovery that will last as long as they live.

On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 10:04:55 AM UTC, OG wrote:
On 25/12/2013 03:57, wrote:

On Monday, 23 December 2013 01:03:55 UTC, OG wrote:

On 22/12/2013 23:58, wrote:





Seen from the corner of the tank, two fish are swimming identically, one seen



in the front glass and one seen in the side glass. That is empirical data,



unexpurgated. Yet there is only one fish. Science explains the phenomenon by



detailing refraction. Therefore science is theory that accepts the empirical



data, two fish are observed, but also accepts that only one fish is present.



The light is bent.



Really? - would you see 2 fish "swimming identically"?







Video proof of the claim would be a start



Yes, really. You want video proof of Snell's law?

http://www.youtube.com/user/HondaVideo?v=7PGXZ-oc2-g





A Honda advert ? No fish there.


plenty of artificial illusion though.



Did you mean to post anything relevant?

I did,explaining the effect of refraction, but as you are ****ing stupid you snipped it, you ignorant ****.

On 25/12/2013 18:14, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 10:04:55 AM UTC, OG wrote:
On 25/12/2013 03:57, wrote:

On Monday, 23 December 2013 01:03:55 UTC, OG wrote:

On 22/12/2013 23:58, wrote:





Seen from the corner of the tank, two fish are swimming identically, one seen



in the front glass and one seen in the side glass. That is empirical data,



unexpurgated. Yet there is only one fish. Science explains the phenomenon by



detailing refraction. Therefore science is theory that accepts the empirical



data, two fish are observed, but also accepts that only one fish is present.



The light is bent.



Really? - would you see 2 fish "swimming identically"?







Video proof of the claim would be a start



Yes, really. You want video proof of Snell's law?

http://www.youtube.com/user/HondaVideo?v=7PGXZ-oc2-g





A Honda advert ? No fish there.


plenty of artificial illusion though.



Did you mean to post anything relevant?

I did,explaining the effect of refraction, but as you are ****ing stupid you snipped it, you ignorant ****.


You were asked for video proof. You failed to provide.

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 5:55:38 PM UTC, OG wrote:
On 25/12/2013 18:14, wrote:

On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 10:04:55 AM UTC, OG wrote:

On 25/12/2013 03:57, wrote:



On Monday, 23 December 2013 01:03:55 UTC, OG wrote:



On 22/12/2013 23:58, wrote:











Seen from the corner of the tank, two fish are swimming identically, one seen







in the front glass and one seen in the side glass. That is empirical data,







unexpurgated. Yet there is only one fish. Science explains the phenomenon by







detailing refraction. Therefore science is theory that accepts the empirical







data, two fish are observed, but also accepts that only one fish is present.







The light is bent.







Really? - would you see 2 fish "swimming identically"?















Video proof of the claim would be a start







Yes, really. You want video proof of Snell's law?



http://www.youtube.com/user/HondaVideo?v=7PGXZ-oc2-g











A Honda advert ? No fish there.





plenty of artificial illusion though.







Did you mean to post anything relevant?



I did,explaining the effect of refraction, but as you are ****ing stupid you snipped it, you ignorant ****.





You were asked for video proof. You failed to provide.

Correct! I have no intention of providing video proof to a moron who has never heard of refraction or the refractive index of water.

On 26/12/2013 20:21, wrote:


You were asked for video proof. You failed to provide.

Correct! I have no intention of providing video proof to a moron who has never heard of refraction or the refractive index of water.


Don't try and be clever - it only comes over as sixth form petulancy.

You made the stupid claim that you couldn't back up!

"Seen from the corner of the tank, two fish are swimming identically..."

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:46:26 PM UTC-7, OG wrote:

You made the stupid claim that you couldn't back up!

"Seen from the corner of the tank, two fish are swimming identically..."

What's stupid about that? Looking at a rectangular fish tank diagonally from a corner, since the contents will look squashed from refraction, you will see a fish swimming close to the corner twice.

John Savard

On 27/12/2013 06:39, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:46:26 PM UTC-7, OG wrote:

You made the stupid claim that you couldn't back up!

"Seen from the corner of the tank, two fish are swimming
identically..."

What's stupid about that? Looking at a rectangular fish tank
diagonally from a corner, since the contents will look squashed from
refraction, you will see a fish swimming close to the corner twice.

John Savard


"swimming identically"? He's not been able to back up the claim.

On Friday, December 27, 2013 4:07:16 AM UTC-7, OG wrote:

"swimming identically"? He's not been able to back up the claim.

If you're doing the Australian crawl, do you think your reflection in a mirror might be doing the dog paddle?

John Savard

On Friday, 27 December 2013 11:07:16 UTC, OG wrote:
On 27/12/2013 06:39, Quadibloc wrote:

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:46:26 PM UTC-7, OG wrote:



You made the stupid claim that you couldn't back up!



"Seen from the corner of the tank, two fish are swimming

identically..."



What's stupid about that? Looking at a rectangular fish tank

diagonally from a corner, since the contents will look squashed from

refraction, you will see a fish swimming close to the corner twice.



John Savard





"swimming identically"? He's not been able to back up the claim.

Look at a real fish in a real tank, you petulant imbecile. See for yourself, that's all the backup I need, you cretin.

On 27/12/2013 16:31, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2013 4:07:16 AM UTC-7, OG wrote:

"swimming identically"? He's not been able to back up the claim.

If you're doing the Australian crawl, do you think your reflection in a mirror might be doing the dog paddle?

John Savard

It would be travelling in the opposite direction.