A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Two dumb questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #42  
Old July 17th 05, 03:18 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #44  
Old July 17th 05, 04:03 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old July 18th 05, 05:11 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old July 19th 05, 05:02 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Big dumb rockets vs. small dumb rockets Andrew Nowicki Policy 28 February 10th 05 01:55 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 03:25 AM
sub-amateur has dumb questions paul beard Amateur Astronomy 16 August 27th 03 10:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.