Of all the worthless explanations

That Platt guy is insane -


"But that's not the way things are. The length of the day and year are not exact multiples; they don't divide evenly. There are actually about 365.25 days in a year. That extra fraction is critical; it adds up. Every year, our calendar is off by about a quarter of a day, an extra 6 hours just sitting there, left over.

After one year the calendar is off by 1/4 of a day. After two years it's a half day off, then 3/4, then, after four years, the calendar is off by roughly a whole day:

4 years at 365 (calendar) days/year = 1,460 days, but

4 years at 365.25 (physical) days/year = 1,461 days

So after four years the calendar is behind by a day. The Earth has spun one extra time over those four years, and we need to make up for that. So, to balance out the calendar again we add that day back once every four years"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro....html#comments

It is as though an enormous joke is being played on society at the expense of genuine astronomy.

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 10:52:36 AM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
That Platt guy is insane -


"But that's not the way things are. The length of the day and year are not exact multiples; they don't divide evenly. There are actually about 365.25 days in a year. That extra fraction is critical; it adds up. Every year, our calendar is off by about a quarter of a day, an extra 6 hours just sitting there, left over.

After one year the calendar is off by 1/4 of a day. After two years it's a half day off, then 3/4, then, after four years, the calendar is off by roughly a whole day:

4 years at 365 (calendar) days/year = 1,460 days, but

4 years at 365.25 (physical) days/year = 1,461 days

So after four years the calendar is behind by a day. The Earth has spun one extra time over those four years, and we need to make up for that. So, to balance out the calendar again we add that day back once every four years"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro....html#comments

It is as though an enormous joke is being played on society at the expense of genuine astronomy.

But he says just what you say... 1461 days per year. The rest of us know that he is speaking of solar days, rotations WRT the Sun... but still, what do you have to complain about here?

By the way, the man's name is Plait, Phil Plait. You could learn a lot from his blog. I sure have, over the years. This article, from almost 19 years ago, I found to be just amazing...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/parallel.html

.... and you should, too. Amazing!

\Paul A

The point where timekeeping ( the days and dates of the calendar framework) come into a close proximity to the daily and orbital cycles is when the Earth returns to roughly the same position in space it was 4 years and 4 orbital circuits earlier. It should be loved for what it is but it takes a sense of admiration and interest to put all the details in context and most are too lazy and uninspiring to do just that.

On Friday March 1st 2013 at roughly 6 AM the Earth closed out its full annual circuit that began on March 1st 2012 so that after the next full circuit at 12 noon Saturday March 1st 2014 it arrived back to roughly the same orbital position.

At 6PM on Sunday March 1st 2015 the Earth was ahead in its orbit by over a full 18 hours after completing another circuit so by the end of today February 28th it will be ahead by close to 24 hours. The extra rotation of Monday February 29th and the 24 hours of orbital motion brings the Earth close to its orbital point it began on Friday March 1st 2012 and so a new cycle begins afresh.

I look at these impostors who are unable to deal with the compromise in terms of the actual proportion of rotations to orbital circuits and the purpose of February 29th as both a rotation and 24 hours of orbital motion which reflects the return of the Earth close to the same orbital position it was 4 years ago on March 1st 2012 and that when the Equinox occurs in 3 weeks time it will remain very close to March 21st .

If February 29th did not exist and February 28th had turned into March 1st today based on a constant 365 day cycle, the first casualty would be the Equinox date which would quickly drift away from March 21st . The purpose of today is to stall a major drift in terms of the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits using full rotations as a benchmark.

Dealing with whole numbers makes the whole thing understandable.

Another really worthless explanation is from NASA -

http://nasa.tumblr.com/post/14021309...-does-it-exist

The North/South polar points are simply locations on the Earth's surface that do not rotate as a function of the Earth's daily rotation whereas the Equator turns at a rate of 15 degrees and 1037.5 miles per hour.

The North/South poles cross the fully illuminated face of the Earth each 6 months as they turn in a circle in response to the orbital motion of the Earth so NASA is quite wrong in its descriptions that it always points in the same direction.

By using the circle of illumination as a gauge and the central Sun as a fixed central object, the North/South poles will be seen to turn in a circle like so -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...precession.svg

For a $17 billion a year organization to ignore the cause of the seasons arising from dual surface rotations as opposed to talking about a 'tilting' or tilted Earth can be painful to watch as I want these guys to succeed even though they seem determined to fail.

The explanation of the leap day by people in NASA looks lazy,indifferent and disinterested as though they had nothing to do. Considering that so much of terrestrial sciences depend on the planetary cycles to omit the surface rotation as a function of the planet's orbital motion is truly dismaying.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 12:43:22 PM UTC, oriel36 wrote:

The North/South poles cross the fully illuminated face of the Earth each 6 months as they turn in a circle in response to the orbital motion of the Earth so NASA is quite wrong in its descriptions that it always points in the same direction.

So the star Polaris, 434 light years away, is flying around the Universe in a giant circle 377 light years across every year, just so that it can stay above the pole as the pole rotates?

No - that is insane. The pole points at a distant and barely moving star all year around, it is the illuminated face which changes as the Earth goes around the Sun.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 4:53:23 PM UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 12:43:22 PM UTC, oriel36 wrote:

The North/South poles cross the fully illuminated face of the Earth each 6 months as they turn in a circle in response to the orbital motion of the Earth so NASA is quite wrong in its descriptions that it always points in the same direction.

So the star Polaris, 434 light years away, is flying around the Universe in a giant circle 377 light years across every year, just so that it can stay above the pole as the pole rotates?

No - that is insane. The pole points at a distant and barely moving star all year around, it is the illuminated face which changes as the Earth goes around the Sun.

I assure you the North/South polar latitudes turn in a circle to the central Sun and to the circle of illumination . In comes from the principle that minus daily rotation ,all points on the Earth's surface turn once to the central Sun as a function of its orbital motion. It is this surface rotation which causes the natural noon cycle to vary globally when it combines with constant daily rotation.

Seen from space, the poles will be seen to move exactly as shown over the course of a year -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...precession.svg

Had somebody thought to put a telescope on the Earth facing side of the moon, the sweep of the North/South poles across the fully illuminated face of the Earth would be witnessed with each monthly pass of the moon in front of that fully illuminated face.

In one of the worst use of imaging possible,a person at NASA tilts the circle of illumination in the most grotesque way as opposed to the acceptance of dual surface rotations responsible for the seasons -

http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images..._2010-2011.jpg

That this carries a NASA imprimatur in the header is dismaying and openly invites derision but such is this strange era that it actually makes it into circulation.

Had somebody thought to put a telescope on the Earth facing side of the
moon, the sweep of the North/South poles across the fully illuminated
face of the Earth would be witnessed with each monthly pass of the moon
in front of that fully illuminated face.


You you put a telescope on the Earth facing side of the moon for a year you
would see this.

http://youtu.be/yvhqK7NVVrU

First half without magnification. Second half magnified.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 6:02:00 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

Had somebody thought to put a telescope on the Earth facing side of the
moon, the sweep of the North/South poles across the fully illuminated
face of the Earth would be witnessed with each monthly pass of the moon
in front of that fully illuminated face.


You you put a telescope on the Earth facing side of the moon for a year you
would see this.

http://youtu.be/yvhqK7NVVrU

First half without magnification. Second half magnified.

With each monthly sweep of the fully illuminated face, the North/South poles turn to the Sun like so -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...precession.svg

This is what dual surface rotations look like and why an observer stand at the surface at the North/South poles sees the Sun rising or setting at the Equinoxes.

Of course the real thing is much more spectacular -

https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.ne...2529-1_800.jpg

If you think you are seeing axial precession of Uranus then you are mistaken, it is simply two surface rotations to the central Sun and responsible for its seasons.

When they get around to putting a telescope on the moon they will track the polar coordinates exactly as I have described.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 10:50:04 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

Seen from space, the poles will be seen to move exactly as shown over the course of a year -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...precession.svg

Um, yes, if someone had a telescope at the L5 point of the Earth-Sun system
trained on the Earth, the Earth's poles would seem to do that over the course
of a year.

That would be because the Earth and that telescope would both share an orbital
motion around the Sun, so the direction from which the telescope looks at the
Earth goes through 360 degrees over the course of a year.

On the other hand, if one was always looking at the Earth from the _same_
direction, then for the Earth's poles to do that would take about 24,000 years,
and the cause of _that_ would be the Earth precessing the way a top does, and
which even the geocentric ancient Hipparchus knew about.

Basically, for a Copernican, you're awfully geocentric.

John Savard

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 5:50:04 PM UTC, oriel36 wrote:

I assure you the North/South polar latitudes turn in a circle to the central Sun and to the circle of illumination .

Fun fact for Gerald: the North pole of Uranus points at the star Eta Ophiuci, known as Sabik, near Antares. Yes - all the time!

Just like our North Pole points near Polaris, and has been pointing there since before Gerald went mad.