This one is for oriel36: Reading the sky

On Nov 7, 11:07*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:52 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Something as simple as twilight arising from a daily rotational cause
and the separate twilight at the equinoxes as the polar coordinates
turn through the circle of illumination and the Sun and its light
disappears for roughly 5 months until polar dawn as the polar
coordinates turn back through the circle of illumination or rather
carried around in a circle by the orbital behavior of the planet.

Not a shred of an explanation anywhere else,just a blurring of details
based on *a really dumb notion of the perceived angle of descent of
the Sun whereas an astronomer would work off latitudinal speeds,the
slower the latitudinal speed the longer the twilight as demanded by
logic so long as the Sun is visible at all times of the year.The polar
twilight is a separate issue with a separate cause,a cause which is
vital in understanding why the seasons change and why natural noon
cycles vary.

No the polar twilight is just the same twilight.
You try to make simple observations unnecessarily complex.

I wouldn't know what type of mind would rely on the apparent descent
of the Sun below the horizon to account for the twilight experience

A sane mind.

which only daily rotation and latitudinal speeds could account for -

Latitudinal speed is just a consequence of angular rotation. That's why
your head turns faster than your feet. Even though the angle is the same.

it is though there was some fear of change among readers.

No. We just don't want to abandon the correct explanation in favour of your
infantile nonsense.

I already
know that somewhere down the line the correct correlation between
daily latitudinal speeds and twilight lengths will start to appear but
such is the nature of rut science and bandwagon science.

It's already available but not to people who are unable to visualise.
You are wrong.
Grow up and try to understand the real world, not your cosy, inconsistent
twisted perception of reality.
You live in the discredited world of Ancient Greek philosophers who
believed in mythical essences.
Join the real world. Aristotle was wrong and stifled the understanding if
the real world for centuries.
Grow up and try to understand the real world.

The real world indeed !,the most dominant perspective today *is that
you can *not only see the past directly,you can actually see the
evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly and people who give
themselves that regrettable 'power' would not find it possible to
return to the astronomy of human experience where things are
discovered and developed in order and causes follow from effects.

Quite correct. You can see the timeline if the universe directly thanks to
the finite velocity of light.



I suspect many would wish to change but the surrounding environment is
just not there presently for them to act as they should so what
happens is that they give up or give in to rut/bandwagon ideologies
which not only stretch the imagination to breaking point but use it to
distort physical considerations for pure rubbish such as 'big bang'.I
grew up being comfortable with powerful modern imaging,planes can take
us rapidly across latitudes hence the immediate experience of twilight
lengths and the fast or slow transition from daylight to darkness due
to rotational speeds,we have people *and webcams at the polar
coordinates taking note of polar dawn and twilight so all in all,I
takes these contemporary conveniences and the data and move
information around without fear and with great enjoyment as opposed to
a sour bunch with nothing to say.

Who are you to call me a member of a sour bunch. I'm smiling now as I
always do when amused by your naïveté.
You are the gloomy one!


You have every reason to smile - not only has the view succeeded that
we can see the evolution of the Universe,so also has the view that
humans can and should control the planet's temperature and when the re-
elected politician came out and stated it,they were the words of a
person who is being lead rather than doing the leading.

Of course when the same group can firmly believe the moon spins and
one 24 hour day does not match one rotation and keep in step,the
consequences become more drastic with time so modeled human activity
into global warming or 'big bang' are simply the attempt of the
colorless empiricist to take refuge in novelties - almost a badge of
pride to believe in the opposite of what is true where not even the
normal continuity between past.present and future survives.

Smile you will and many will smile with you -when the education is
under the control of empiricists and they can continue to present
people like Newton as people to aspire to,even without knowing what he
did and how he did it,you might even smile to watch America slide
towards the same colorless commie ideologies through backdoor
agendas.Not enough people who have the strength nor the intellectual
competence to see things develop the way they did nor a developed
interpretative faculty to see what great advances technology has to
offer in basic astronomical and terrestrial facts as opposed to the
sour and doom laden agenda that never saw a fact it didn't hate.

Christian do not smile at wrongdoing but what you engage in is neither
incompetence or fraud and that is why all this is so dangerous,there
is no willful attempt to deceive as it doesn't register with you that
way no more than it does with the politician who dooms his children to
empirical models of global warming without even knowing what global
climate actually is,or more importantly,not wanting to know what it is
outside what the modelers tell the world.

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 1:37:27 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

Something as simple as twilight arising from a daily rotational cause

and the separate twilight at the equinoxes as the polar coordinates

turn through the circle of illumination and the Sun and its light

disappears for roughly 5 months until polar dawn as the polar

coordinates turn back through the circle of illumination or rather

carried around in a circle by the orbital behavior of the planet.

You are making this much harder to understand than need be. While it is true that twilight is a simple enough concept, you don't seem to understand that its definition is quite simple. Astronomical twilight is defined as being that time when the center of the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon. Only then is it as dark as it is going to get for the night. Any less than 18 degrees, it is still twilight.

So, the only thing to determine on any particular day, is how long does it take from the moment that the sun disappears at sunset for the sun to get 18 degrees down? The speed of the surface of the Earth doesn't answer the question, the angular speed doesn't answer the question, the inclination of the pole wrt the sun doesn't answer the question, where you are standing on the earth doesn't answer the question, the only thing that matters is *how long does the sun take to reach 18 degrees below the horizon*?

The answer to that, of course, isn't simple, it depends on just where you are on earth's surface and what time of the year it happens to be. ALL factors need to be taken into account, not just angular speed or surface speed or inclination, even though each contribute to the answer, some more than others, depending on the time of year.

There is no *separate cause*, there is only the simple 18-degrees-below-the-horizon definition. Lots of variables, but only a single, simple, straightforward, easy-to-understand definition.

Deal with it.

"Laughter is day, and sobriety is night; a smile is the twilight that hovers gently between both, more bewitching than either."

- Henry Ward Beecher

\Paul A

On Nov 7, 2:37*pm, oriel36 wrote:

I wouldn't know what type of mind would rely on the apparent descent
of the Sun below the horizon to account for the twilight experience
which only daily rotation and latitudinal speeds could account for -

Huh? Twilight would happen either way; it's hardly evidence fot
Copernicus!

That must be sought elsewhere; fortunately, it exists and is
plentiful. The motions of the planets become simple, rather than
compound, if one accepts Copernicus. But you would make the rotation
of the Earth into a compound motion with your notions.

John Savard

On Nov 8, 2:49*am, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 1:37:27 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
Something as simple as twilight arising from a daily rotational cause

and the separate twilight at the equinoxes as the polar coordinates

turn through the circle of illumination and the Sun and its light

disappears for roughly 5 months until polar dawn as the polar

coordinates turn back through the circle of illumination or rather

carried around in a circle by the orbital behavior of the planet.

You are making this much harder to understand than need be. While it is true that twilight is a simple enough concept, you don't seem to understand that its definition is quite simple. Astronomical twilight is defined as being that time when the center of the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon. Only then is it as dark as it is going to get for the night. Any less than 18 degrees, it is still twilight.

So, the only thing to determine on any particular day, is how long does it take from the moment that the sun disappears at sunset for the sun to get 18 degrees down? The speed of the surface of the Earth doesn't answer the question, the angular speed doesn't answer the question, the inclination of the pole wrt the sun doesn't answer the question, where you are standing on the earth doesn't answer the question, the only thing that matters is *how long does the sun take to reach 18 degrees below the horizon*?


The Sun is not above and below anything hence it answers Sam's
questions,it is at the center of the solar system and all questions
related to twilight happen on the basis of the Earth's two motions.The
dysfunctional education system which teaches Ra/Dec homocentricity
takes no account of a round and rotating Earth so the idea of the Sun
reaching 18 degrees below a horizon is considered real as opposed to
the correct perspective that a location rotates through the circle of
illumination and away from the Sun.A person on the equator covers far
more distance from the time they enter the circle of illumination at
twilight and exit it at dawn compared to a person at latitudes further
North and South so the transition time from daylight to darkness will
be reflected in surface speeds and besides,there must be so much
information here on the topic of light as it is received from the Sun.

My astronomical ancestors did consider incorporeal things like above/
below and certainly 'horizon' is another one of these things which are
a convenient expression for everyday use and fine as long as it is
taken into account of a round and rotating Earth.It becomes more and
more apparent just how limiting the Ra/Dec conventions are when cause
and effect are taken into account and particularly the motions of our
own planets.Far from being outdated,it is a pleasure to see how the
old astronomers started to take into account what was out there rather
than 'up' there and it is crucial that we start thinking that way once
more -

“And, finally, in what sense, and in reference to what thing is Earth
said to be ‘intermediate?’ For the universe is infinite; now that
which is infinite hath neither beginning nor limit, so it does not
belong to it to possess a middle: for infinity is the deprivation of
limits. But he who makes out Earth to be the middle not of the
universe, but of the world, is ridiculous for his simplicity if he
does not reflect that the ‘world’ itself is liable to the very same
objections: for the universe hath not left a middle place for it also,
but it is borne along without house or home in the boundless vacuum,
towards nothing cognate to itself; perhaps it has found out for itself
some other cause for remaining fixed, and so has stood still, but
certainly not owing to the nature of its position. And it is allowable
for one to conjecture alike with respect to Earth and with respect to
the moon, that by some contrary soul and nature they are [actuated,
the consequence of the diversity being] differences, the former
remaining stationary here, the latter moving along. But apart from
these considerations, see whether a certain important fact has not
escaped their notice. For if whatsoever space, and whatever thing
exists away from the center of Earth, is the ‘above,’ then no part of
Earth is ‘below,’ but Earth herself and the things upon Earth; and, in
a word, everybody standing around or investing the center, become the
‘above;’ whilst ‘below’ is one sole thing, that incorporeal point,
which has the duty of counterbalancing the whole constitution of the
world; if, indeed, the ‘below’ is by its nature opposed to the
‘above.’ And this is not the only absurdity in the argument, but it
also does away with the cause through which all ponderous bodies
gravitate in this direction, and tend downwards: for there is no mark
below towards which they move: for the incorporeal point is not likely
(nor do they pretend it is) to exert so much force as to draw down all
objects to itself, and keep them together around itself. But yet, it
is proved unreasonable, and repugnant to facts, to suppose the ‘above’
of the world to be a whole, but the ‘below’ an incorporeal and
indefinite limit: whereas that course is consistent with reason, to
say, as we do, that the space is large and possessed of width, and is
defined by the ‘above’ and the ‘below’ of locality.
Plutarch





The answer to that, of course, isn't simple, it depends on just where you are on earth's surface and what time of the year it happens to be. ALL factors need to be taken into account, not just angular speed or surface speed or inclination, even though each contribute to the answer, some more than others, depending on the time of year.

There is no *separate cause*, there is only the simple 18-degrees-below-the-horizon definition. Lots of variables, but only a single, simple, straightforward, easy-to-understand definition.

You can actually see the daily twilight on Uranus as rotation runs
South to North and the separate polar twilight as the polar
coordinates turns through the circle of illumination East to West
about 8 years later in 2007 -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612gSZsplpE

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

\Paul A

I am curios about a few things,I know you are honest for the most
part like Sam,Mike and others and nothing like the other thugs and
nuisances - that you do take the time to go out in the open country or
the dessert and look up at the night sky takes effort,patience and all
the other things which astronomer should have to gain the satisfaction
they want.You are part of a heritage stretching back many thousands of
years yet for whatever reasons you accept the shortcut they tried to
take in the late 17th century when watches along with telescopes
started to emerge, a shortcut which shows no effort and little
patience with older astronomical principles when it comes to the bulk
of astronomy relating to cause and effect,timekeeping,what is out
there as opposed to what is above and below and things like
that.Instead of widening your perspective,something which really has
only comes into its own today with imaging power,you seem hostile to
change and the initial effort needed to bring yourself up to speed
with interpreting sequential imaging like that of Uranus.A person who
doesn't exercise and put in the effort starts to suffer ailments and
it is no different with the reasoning and interpretative faculties and
that we have people here who face students and obscure those
interpretative faculties with conceptual rubbish is bound to have an
effect on a nation as the ability to reason properly is diminished.We
are not seeing the effects of climate change,we are seeing the effects
of a dysfunctional education system where people can't see that
climate has yet to be defined using principles that are be discussed
in this thread.Why would you oppose a better approach ?.

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:50:52 AM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

The Sun is not above and below anything hence it answers Sam's

questions,it is at the center of the solar system and all questions

related to twilight happen on the basis of the Earth's two motions.


Well, you couldn't more incorrect. From our perspective, the sun is certainly
above the horizon part of the day and below the horizon part of the day and transiting the horizon for about 4 minutes per day, regardless of the fact that it is the rotation of the Earth that causes the Sun to appear to move, rather than the Sun actually moving. To claim otherwise is simply fooling yourself.

If you do not accept my definition of twilight as presented, then you must have you own definition, which you have not presented, so let's hear it. Of course, it must be both measurable and predictable, so what do you have to say?

It is unclear to me why you insist that the RA/DEC system has ruined astronomy, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the length of twilight, nothing at all.

I'm off to the desert this Saturday with my telescope to observe, and from my perspective I will watch the Sun move from above my local horizon to below it, and after it has finally moved to 18 degrees below that horizon, when it is finally and truly dark, I will enjoy many hours enjoying the night sky rotate from east to west. Of course, I know that it is really the Earth that is turning, and not the sky, but since I can in no way discern that Earthy motion, I will instead enjoy the apparent movement of the things in the sky... as we all do.

\Paul A

"palsing" wrote in message ...
On Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:50:52 AM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

The Sun is not above and below anything hence it answers Sam's

questions,it is at the center of the solar system and all questions

related to twilight happen on the basis of the Earth's two motions.


Well, you couldn't more incorrect. From our perspective, the sun is certainly
above the horizon part of the day and below the horizon part of the day and transiting the horizon for about 4 minutes per day, regardless of the fact that it is the rotation of the Earth that causes the Sun to appear to move, rather than the Sun actually moving. To claim otherwise is simply fooling yourself.

If you do not accept my definition of twilight as presented, then you must have you own definition, which you have not presented, so let's hear it. Of course, it must be both measurable and predictable, so what do you have to say?

It is unclear to me why you insist that the RA/DEC system has ruined astronomy, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the length of twilight, nothing at all.

I'm off to the desert this Saturday with my telescope to observe, and from my perspective I will watch the Sun move from above my local horizon to below it, and after it has finally moved to 18 degrees below that horizon, when it is finally and truly dark, I will enjoy many hours enjoying the night sky rotate from east to west. Of course, I know that it is really the Earth that is turning, and not the sky, but since I can in no way discern that Earthy motion, I will instead enjoy the apparent movement of the things in the sky... as we all do.

\Paul A

=======================================
Why would you go to a desert to observe your telescope? I can observe mine from my kitchen window!
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Nov 8, 6:46*pm, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:50:52 AM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
The Sun is not above and below anything hence it answers Sam's

questions,it is at the center of the solar system and all questions

related to twilight happen on the basis of the Earth's two motions.

Well, you couldn't more incorrect. From our perspective, the sun is certainly
above the horizon part of the day and below the horizon part of the day and transiting the horizon for about 4 minutes per day, regardless of the fact that it is the rotation of the Earth that causes the Sun to appear to move, rather than the Sun actually moving. To claim otherwise is simply fooling yourself.

If you do not accept my definition of twilight as presented, then you must have you own definition, which you have not presented, so let's hear it. Of course, it must be both measurable and predictable, so what do you have to say?

It is unclear to me why you insist that the RA/DEC system has ruined astronomy, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the length of twilight, nothing at all.

I'm off to the desert this Saturday with my telescope to observe, and from my perspective I will watch the Sun move from above my local horizon to below it, and after it has finally moved to 18 degrees below that horizon, when it is finally and truly dark, I will enjoy many hours enjoying the night sky rotate from east to west. Of course, I know that it is really the Earth that is turning, and not the sky, but since I can in no way discern that Earthy motion, I will instead enjoy the apparent movement of the things in the sky... as we all do.

\Paul A

It sometimes happens that interpretative astronomy is not for everyone
and if you want the Sun to disappear below an incorporeal line that
is the 'horizon' then you are free to do so,it is perhaps bumping
along at a level of a flat Earth but you seem happy enough and who am
I to contend with your satisfaction.

For everyone else and especially those who do care about people other
than their own satisfaction and as responsible parents and individuals
they can interpret the sequence of images of Uranus showing two
separate twilight events from two separate dynamical causes as a
means to dramatically introduce the new explanation for the
seasons,why natural noon cycles vary and more importantly - how to
define planetary climate by the degree of rotational orientation.

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg



You do belong to a group who have their roots in late 17th century
England in that the above/below perception that the geocentric
astronomers had long since demoted by reason to an inferior status and
absurdity came back with a vengeance through Ra/Dec when only the 24
hour AM/PM cycle in tandem with the Lat/Long system contains the
information on the Earth's daily rotation.

Perhaps only NASA has the clout to withstand the objections from those
who support the iconic Newton insofar as his agenda is based on vague
finger pointing towards the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec otherwise
the alternative is unbearable - children doomed to follow models that
theorists firmly believe are reality.

On Nov 8, 8:56*pm, Andrexia tittered:
Why would you go to a desert to observe your telescope?

One word: Perspective.
Two more words: What telescope?

"Chris.B" wrote in message ...


One word: Perspective.
=============================
palsing’s telescope has perspex lenses?

On Nov 7, 1:55*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:



eleven successive hours

I do not claim anything other than being slightly out of place and out
of time with my contemporaries,merely a few steps ahead with the
contemporary tools I inherited and looking at a sprawling astronomical
picture before me and so we are all invited to take in that view
rather than force visions of doom on children who cannot defend
themselves.

You have asked your questions and you received answers with new
perspectives mixed with old ones for in looking to the future we
sometimes must look to the past and what was done for right or for
wrong.