The orbital daylight/darkness cycle

gkell1

The Earth has a single daylight/darkness cycle as it turns to the central Sun so that in the absence of daily rotation,all locations on the planet would experience something akin to what happens at the North/South poles in terms of 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness.

The polar coordinates turn in a roughly 10366 mile cycle/circle to the central Sun each year about a 'traveling axis' which stretches roughly through the center of the Earth from Arctic to Antarctic circles,while this is extremely difficult to envisage for the Earth,the convenient attributes of the planet Uranus clearly demonstrate two distinct rotations to the central Sun - the South/North motion of daily rotation and the separate East/West orbital turning of the planet.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/

The orbital daylight/darkness cycle can be seen in the sequence of images which can then be applied to the Earth as a certainty -

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

The seasons are not caused by the 'tilt' of the Earth towards and away from the central Sun or any other similar reference,the replacement explanation requires the introduction of an orbital component where the Earth turns 360 degrees to the central Sun and coincident to the orbital period of the planet and then allied with daily rotation.

octo

gkell1 wrote: »

The Earth has a single daylight/darkness cycle as it turns to the central Sun so that in the absence of daily rotation,all locations on the planet would experience something akin to what happens at the North/South poles in terms of 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness.

The polar coordinates turn in a roughly 10366 mile cycle/circle to the central Sun each year about a 'traveling axis' which stretches roughly through the center of the Earth from Arctic to Antarctic circles,while this is extremely difficult to envisage for the Earth,the convenient attributes of the planet Uranus clearly demonstrate two distinct rotations to the central Sun - the South/North motion of daily rotation and the separate East/West orbital turning of the planet.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/

The orbital daylight/darkness cycle can be seen in the sequence of images which can then be applied to the Earth as a certainty -

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

The seasons are not caused by the 'tilt' of the Earth towards and away from the central Sun or any other similar reference,the replacement explanation requires the introduction of an orbital component where the Earth turns 360 degrees to the central Sun and coincident to the orbital period of the planet and then allied with daily rotation.

Emmmm, shouldn't this be in the 'Astronomy' forum or something? You neglect to say anywhere in your post that you're talking about Uranus.

gkell1

octo wrote: »

Emmmm, shouldn't this be in the 'Astronomy' forum or something? You neglect to say anywhere in your post that you're talking about Uranus.

.."the convenient attributes of the planet Uranus clearly demonstrate two distinct rotations to the central Sun - the South/North motion of daily rotation and the separate East/West orbital turning of the planet."

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/

Global climate is a consequence of planetary attributes and especially the combination of daily and orbital motions,weather is a subdivision of this where local inputs such as proximity to oceans, landmass,hemispherical differences affect the degree of hot/cold,sunshine/cloud,precipitation and all the other experiences associated with weather.

It is possible to model weather effectively without interpreting the dynamical causes of why weather changes from season to season but the objection that this belongs in an astronomy forum does not stand.The new approach replaces the awkward 'tilt' towards and away from the Sun in terms of seasonal temperature oscillations and centers the cause on a more accurate explanation by looking at what the Earth is doing as it orbits the Sun.

octo

gkell1 wrote: »

.."the convenient attributes of the planet Uranus clearly demonstrate two distinct rotations to the central Sun - the South/North motion of daily rotation and the separate East/West orbital turning of the planet."

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/

Global climate is a consequence of planetary attributes and especially the combination of daily and orbital motions,weather is a subdivision of this where local inputs such as proximity to oceans, landmass,hemispherical differences affect the degree of hot/cold,sunshine/cloud,precipitation and all the other experiences associated with weather.

It is possible to model weather effectively without interpreting the dynamical causes of why weather changes from season to season but the objection that this belongs in an astronomy forum does not stand.The new approach replaces the awkward 'tilt' towards and away from the Sun in terms of seasonal temperature oscillations and centers the cause on a more accurate explanation by looking at what the Earth is doing as it orbits the Sun.

Ok - thanks for the clarification.

gkell1

octo wrote: »

Ok - thanks for the clarification.

You are welcome.

gkell1

The temperature swings at the following location are pretty dramatic however readers may assume that the cause of the fluctuations between daytime highs and nighttime lows is obvious and that they can read the rotation of the Earth out of this basic data -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/104?

From March 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012 there are 1461 days which correspond to 1461 rotations of the Earth and while the proportion of rotations for 1 orbital circuit is 365 1/4 to 1,the calendar system formats this proportion into 365 rotations for 3 years and 366 rotations for 1 year as daily and orbital motions are distinct from each other and such an arrangement is possible.

Now current science disputes this correspondence between cause and effect and it began in the late 17th century when they tried to model the Earth's daily and orbital motions using stellar circumpolar motion so that they arrive at a false 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days or 1465 rotations in 1461 days -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year" NASA

So,even if meteorologists can afford to continue modeling short term temperatures levels without having any concern for the motions of the Earth (as with the BBC index above) and how they cause daily and seasonal fluctuations,it is unconscionable that they cannot correlate cause with effect as the temperatures rise and fall dramatically in 24 hours and 1 rotation of the Earth or what amounts to the same thing 1461 rotations in 1461 days.

Su Campu

gkell1 wrote: »

The temperature swings at the following location are pretty dramatic however readers may assume that the cause of the fluctuations between daytime highs and nighttime lows is obvious and that they can read the rotation of the Earth out of this basic data -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/104?

From March 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012 there are 1461 days which correspond to 1461 rotations of the Earth and while the proportion of rotations for 1 orbital circuit is 365 1/4 to 1,the calendar system formats this proportion into 365 rotations for 3 years and 366 rotations for 1 year as daily and orbital motions are distinct from each other and such an arrangement is possible.

Now current science disputes this correspondence between cause and effect and it began in the late 17th century when they tried to model the Earth's daily and orbital motions using stellar circumpolar motion so that they arrive at a false 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days or 1465 rotations in 1461 days -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year" NASA

So,even if meteorologists can afford to continue modeling short term temperatures levels without having any concern for the motions of the Earth (as with the BBC index above) and how they cause daily and seasonal fluctuations,it is unconscionable that they cannot correlate cause with effect as the temperatures rise and fall dramatically in 24 hours and 1 rotation of the Earth or what amounts to the same thing 1461 rotations in 1461 days.

This post was in a new thread so I moved it here as it's still dealing with the same thing.

gkell1

Su Campu wrote: »

This post was in a new thread so I moved it here as it's still dealing with the same thing.

Let me get this straight,I just presented two separate issues,the first one is the replacement of 'tilt' as the dynamic behind latitudinal temperature fluctuations throughout the year with a distinct orbital daylight/darkness cycle and the second issue is entirely different and dismaying.

Let me also put it into perspective,the foremost engineering institution in the world,NASA to be precise,proposes 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days which expands out to an utterly mindnumbing imbalance of 1465 rotations in 1461 days and in a forum dedicated to daily temperature fluctuations,the acceptance of this mismatch between cause and effect is remarkable for all the wrong reasons.Even allowing for unfamiliarity with the complex issues which resulted in a mismatch,I see this ability to ignore something so close to human experience as the day/night cycle and its cause as daily rotation in a way that should induce abhorrence among reasonable and caring people but it doesn't.

I watch as people casually pass such a tragedy without the slightest concern and even indifference and there is no excuse,anyone who is sickened by the event in China this week where people knowingly acted in an unthinking and an unfeeling way had better look in the mirror in this matter as attempting to disrupt the normal correspondence between the 1461 rotations in 4 years is an intellectual catastrophe of the highest order -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECeC4R-Gjtc


Anyone who cannot extract the rotation of the Earth out of a basic temperature index showing daily temperature fluctuations,and followers of Royal Society empiricism can't do this,cannot consider themselves as scientists or much else -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/101?

Su Campu

I don't get your point. Say in one sentence what it is. Obviously the difference in max and min temperatures has to do with the earth's rotation. I'm confused as to wht you're getting at!

gkell1

Su Campu wrote: »

I don't get your point. Say in one sentence what it is. Obviously the difference in max and min temperatures has to do with the earth's rotation. I'm confused as to wht you're getting at!

Tell me,does this statement make sense to you ? -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year" NASA

You want your sentence so now you have it,the next thing is to match it with daily temperature fluctuations as cause and effect

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/13030?

If you find yourself in any way troubled that there is a huge mistake somewhere then I assume you get the point,if not then you would not get the point of people casually passing by any tragedy because they just don't want to be bothered or see only what they want to see.

Su Campu

I still don't get what your point is, and what in the world posting that Chinese video has to do with weather. The Earth rotates on its axis once not every 24 hours, but every 23 hours 56 minutes. This gives rise to the discrepancy over time, and the need for leap years.

What is your point regarding the forecast you posted for Colorado? What are we meant to be blindly ignoring?

Cú Giobach

gkell1 wrote: »

Tell me,does this statement make sense to you ? -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year" NASA

http://www.wallingfordclock.talktalk.net/Sidereal%20Time.htm

To summarise:
In one year the earth makes one complete orbit of the sun.
It rotates 3661/4 times on its own axis so we see the stars appear to rotate 3661/4 times and we experience 3651/4 noons - i.e. 3651/4 solar days.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970714.html

There is another astronomical effect you should know about that can change the time that the Sun is highest in the sky. This is a little hard to explain, but it also has to do with us watching the Sun from a tilted perspective. The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year. This is because we define a day not based on the Earth's period of rotation, but based on the average time from noon one day to noon the next. Gradually over the course of a year the Sun appears to go 'backwards' (West to East) around the Earth compared to the far away stars (this is because we are really going around the Sun). Subtracting this 1 time backwards from the 366 and 1/4 times forward, we get the typical 365 and 1/4 days per year.

gkell1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

-http://www.wallingfordclock.talktalk.net/Sidereal%20Time.htm

This topic meshes with weather in that the individual begins with the conclusion that there are 1461 rotations in 1461 days (4 years) hence daily temperatures fluctuate in tandem with rotation so that working in the details of 365 1/4 rotations in 1 orbital cycle is a matter of course.

A person in Cork or Dublin has no reason to believe that daylight turns to darkness or that temperatures rise and fall for any other reason than daily rotation so that you are not arguing for 1465 rotations in 4 years but in the unconscionable position of arguing against the cause of why we experience the day/night cycle or temperature fluctuations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/210?

Somehow I imagine people do see the point yet behave in such a way that they feel it is not their responsibility and simply pass on.The specific error is with right ascension where they decided they could model the daily and orbital motions of the Earth using timekeeping averages and calendar system and while it is a complicated issue,the conclusion arising from this system where daily rotation no longer matches effects which all people experience is not at all difficult to comprehend.

These things have either an immediate impact or they do not otherwise it develops into attrition where people don't get the point and what have you.Before anyone here kicks up a fuss about carbon dioxide and climate they should stand back and have a look at this thread where readers can't interpret why the temperatures go up and down daily and that is the standard which prevails.

Cú Giobach

:rolleyes:

gkell1

Su Campu wrote: »

I still don't get what your point is, and what in the world posting that Chinese video has to do with weather. The Earth rotates on its axis once not every 24 hours, but every 23 hours 56 minutes. This gives rise to the discrepancy over time, and the need for leap years.

There are 365 rotations in non leap years,you probably know this through weather and the experience of temperatures going up and down daily from Mar 1st to Feb 28th each non leap year,the proportion of rotations to an orbital circuit is 365 1/4 to 1 so that we omit the 1/4 rotation and 6 hours corresponding to orbital distance traveled and pick it up with the 24 hours of rotation and the day/night cycle of Feb 29th in a leap year which brings daily and orbital cycles back into sync.

Su Campu wrote: »

What is your point regarding the forecast you posted for Colorado? What are we meant to be blindly ignoring?

You won't get it ,that much is clear and why I brought the Chinese video into it is that there are others who will get the point but can walk past something as awful as this without considering the consequences of losing basic planetary facts such as the Earth turns once in 24 hours,365 1/4 times in a year and 1461 rotations in 1461 days.

Su Campu

gkell1, you have been rambling incoherently on this thread now and still nobody understands what your point is, and you seem unwilling, or unable, to clarify it. I also see you've been banned before for posting the same thread over and over, and have tried posting in several different forums, in which you got the same replies.

I think it's time to leave it at that.

gkell1

Su Campu wrote: »

gkell1, you have been rambling incoherently on this thread now and still nobody understands what your point is, and you seem unwilling, or unable, to clarify it. I also see you've been banned before for posting the same thread over and over, and have tried posting in several different forums, in which you got the same replies.

I think it's time to leave it at that.

This is fine,maybe I will leave it that there are people who do get the point but do not see it as their responsibility to act in response to something as terrible as the loss of cause and effect at the most basic weather fact of all - that temperatures go up and down daily due to the rotation of the Earth and Feb 29th closes out 1461 rotations in 4 years and 4 orbital circuits of the Earth.

The error based on right ascension is a mistake made in England in the late 17th century,if most here are prepared to live with something as dismal as rejecting the cause of daily temperature fluctuations by assuming 1465 rotations in 4 years then so be it but not this Irishman who is extremely proud of my country's astronomical heritage which is among the oldest in the world via the Newgrange astronomers.

Cú Giobach

gkell1 wrote: »

The error based on right ascension is a mistake made in England in the late 17th century,if most here are prepared to live with something as dismal as rejecting the cause of daily temperature fluctuations by assuming 1465 rotations in 4 years then so be it but not this Irishman who is extremely proud of my country's astronomical heritage which is among the oldest in the world via the Newgrange astronomers.

Sorry to keep this going Su, but for anyone who might be interested.

For the Earth to complete one full day/night cycle it has to turn not 360 degrees but (approx) 361 degrees, due to its movement and thus change in position while orbiting around the Sun, for every 1 degree of arc the Earth travels in its orbit it has to rotate an extra 1 deg for the Sun to return to the same apparent position in the sky.
What we experience as a single day with the resultant temperature fluctuations, is in fact a 361 deg rotation of the Earth, and not as might be assumed a 360 deg one.
Over the course of a year this means the Earth rotates 366 1/4 times but experiences 365 1/4 day/night cycles. Hence 1465 rotations in 4 years and 1461 day/night cycles.

If the Earth didn't orbit and remained in the same place relative to the Sun the number of rotations would equal the number of day/night cycles.

gkell1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Sorry to keep this going Su, but for anyone who might be interested.

For the Earth to complete one full day/night cycle it has to turn not 360 degrees but (approx) 361 degrees, due to its movement and thus change in position while orbiting around the Sun, for every 1 degree of arc the Earth travels in its orbit it has to rotate an extra 1 deg for the Sun to return to the same apparent position in the sky.
What we experience as a single day with the resultant temperature fluctuations, is in fact a 361 deg rotation of the Earth, and not as might be assumed a 360 deg one.
Over the course of a year this means the Earth rotates 366 1/4 times but experiences 365 1/4 day/night cycles. Hence 1465 rotations in 4 years and 1461 day/night cycles.

If the Earth didn't orbit and remained in the same place relative to the Sun the number of rotations would equal the number of day/night cycles.

Why apologise ?,you are reading from a late 17th century English script which proposes 4 extra rotations across 4 years/4 orbital circuits,4 rotations that the Earth does not have and it is not that you are arguing for 1465 rotations,you are arguing against cause and effect at a level where you are questioning the cause of day turning to night.A student asks a teacher if the Earth is round or flat and the answer should be immediate,likewise should a child ask a parent what causes the day to turn to night and why temperatures rise and fall as daylight turns to darkness the answer should also be immediate - that the Earth's rotation is responsible for these things.

I honestly don't know if reasonable people exist in this forum,the fact that 24 hours of rotation matches daylight turning to darkness is followed by the fact that in 4 years,this happens 1461 times as days and dates within the calendar cycle,those unfamiliar with what Feb 29th does can probably be excused for a while but once a reader sees how it all fits together they will have no problem telling their student/child that yes,that any day of the year is due to the rotation of the Earth.How you are going to fit 1465 rotations into 4 years is your own business,I need only to explain what the 24 hours of Feb 29th does as both a day/night cycle and closing out of 1461 rotations in 4 years.

The story of the current cycle began on Mar 1st 2008 when daily rotation and orbital motion started in sync,as the orbital cycle of the Earth around the Sun is 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes,the orbital cycle ended at roughly 6 AM Mar 1st 2009 whereupon a new orbital cycle of 365 1/4 days began and ended at 12 noon Mar 1st 2010,As there are 365 days and rotations between Mar 1st and Feb 28th each year,the orbital cycle drifts ahead through Mar 1st each non-leap year in increments of 6 hours so that by Mar 1st 2011,the orbital cycle was ahead of and out of sync with daily rotation by a full 18 hours in ending at 6 PM Mar 1st 2011.The magic of the 24 hour Feb 29th rotation is that the orbital motion of the Earth would drift the remaining 6 hours towards Mar 2nd 2012 but as the additional Feb 29th rotation intervenes,it covers the remaining 6 hours orbital drift to 24 hours that is happening in Mar 1st each non-leap year and resets the whole system back to Mar 1st 2012 where a new cycle begins with everything starting back roughly in sync.

What happened in the late 17th century was very complicated yet it still boils down to an attempt to create an imbalance between 1461 rotations and 1461 days and ultimately it is on the same level as trying to turn conceptions of a round Earth back into a flat Earth but even worse.It took Royal Society empiricists almost 150 years to adopt the changes to the calendar system which is built around the leap day correction that the Catholic Church instituted through the Gregorian reform of wiping 10 days off the calendar system and for the decade I have dealt with the ins and outs of this issue where basic planetary facts became lost I have discovered that the same empiricists have no intention of correcting or adjusting their views as it is just not in their nature.

This is an area where we have a chance to lead the world instead of the current dismal position of looking for approval from people who created the financial mess in the first place,a chance to demonstrate that there is more to our nation than a speculative splurge gone wrong and that we will not be led by the nose by any other nation or group.

Cú Giobach

gkell1 wrote: »

Why apologise ?,you are reading from a late 17th century English script which proposes 4 extra rotations across 4 years/4 orbital circuits,4 rotations that the Earth does not have and it is not that you are arguing for 1465 rotations,you are arguing against cause and effect at a level where you are questioning the cause of day turning to night.

The Earth takes 23hrs 56mins 4sec to make one rotation, this is very easy to measure using any fixed star (even a child could do it). If you then do the math this adds up to 366 1/4 rotations in 1 year and 1465 rotations in 4 years.
I explained above why this does not match the number of days, it is due to our daily change of position in relation to the Sun.

This is an area where we have a chance to lead the world

By trying to claim the Earth actually rotates 1641 times in 4 years the only place you will lead someone is into ignorance.

gkell1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

By trying to claim the Earth actually rotates 1641 times in 4 years the only place you will lead someone is into ignorance.

The fact that 1461 days/4 years of the calendar cycle equates to 1461 rotations/4 orbital circuits is driven by effects that everyone here experiences day in and day out,daylight turns to darkness and daily temperatures rise and fall in response to the rotation of the Earth.If you can find a way to squeeze together cause and effect using 1465 rotations in 1461 days then good for you but make no mistake about it,it goes from a question of intelligence to one of an affliction of the mind fairly quickly and I assure you that you are on the wrong side of that particular divide should you choose to maintain that awful late 17th century stance.

The term 'flat Earther' is used fairly casually as indicative of the lack of reasoning abilities but the dominant empirical view derived from the celestial sphere ideology of right ascension is really that bad and worse.A meteorologist who is asked why temperatures rise and fall daily should, without hesitation, answer that it is due to the rotating Earth with Feb 29th as a means to explain why daily and orbital motions are distinct from each other even though they exist in combination thereby allowing the raw proportion of 365 1/4 rotations per circuit to exist in a convenient format of 3 years of 365 rotations and 1 year of 366 rotations.

Readers would rather engage in fantasy weather charts than actually give enough effort to comprehend the calendar system in context of the motions of the Earth,a type of indifference that I cannot account for and probably a worse feeling than coming to understand the way they created the original error within the confines of a group of Royal Society empiricists about 300 years ago.

If Irish people cannot state unequivocally that day turns to night because the Earth rotates in 24 hours and maintain the balance of 1461 rotations in 1461 days then forget questions of financial sovereignty,there is no greater slavery than the loss of this particular fact and subsequently our intellectual sovereignty.Only by keeping this front and center will readers either realize that something went badly wrong or can snap out of an indoctrination that allows too many choices and no physical considerations,either way it is crucial for student and adult alike to get this right.

Cú Giobach

gkell1 wrote: »

The fact that 1461 days/4 years of the calendar cycle equates to 1461 rotations/4 orbital circuits is driven by effects that everyone here experiences day in and day out,daylight turns to darkness and daily temperatures rise and fall in response to the rotation of the Earth.If you can find a way to squeeze together cause and effect using 1465 rotations in 1461 days then good for you but make no mistake about it,it goes from a question of intelligence to one of an affliction of the mind fairly quickly and I assure you that you are on the wrong side of that particular divide should you choose to maintain that awful late 17th century stance.

In order to give any validity to your claims you must do 2 things.
1. Explain how the measured rotation rate of the Earth using a fixed point ie: a star, is incorrect.
2. Explain away the fact that in order to keep the same face to a body it orbits an object must rotate by 1° for each degree of motion around said body.
You have done neither, and I can assure you that you will not be able to.

The term 'flat Earther' is used fairly casually as indicative of the lack of reasoning abilities

Claiming the Earth rotates 360° as opposed to 361° in 24 hrs while ignoring the results of a measurement that any person can easily take from any point on the planet with nothing more complicated than an ordinary clock or watch , is akin to claiming the Earth is flat while sitting in a spaceship watching a spherical Earth rotate beneath you.

Bye gkell1.

gkell1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In order to give any validity to your claims you must do 2 things.

I am here in a meteorology forum explaining that daily temperature fluctuations are tied directly to the rotation of the Earth with the only added fact that these rotations keep pace with the day/night cycle so that 1461 rotations equates to the 1461 days/4 years that stretch in the current cycle from Mar 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012.
At what point do readers feel it is acceptable to give a student or a child the wrong answer when asked a simple question as why the temperature goes up and down as day turns to night ?,I couldn't do it nor could anyone else let alone a meteorologist.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Explain how the measured rotation rate of the Earth using a fixed point ie: a star, is incorrect.

What you are talking about is stellar circumpolar motion -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

A star returns to the same meridian 365 times in a non leap year and 366 times in a leap year,this is the short answer which draws attention that such a determination is made using the calendar system so it is not possible to describe both daily and orbital motions this way,that is the short answer yet the long and complicated answer merely affirms that if you use the calendar system to describe the daily and orbital motions of the Earth you turn a convenient tool into a weapon.

It is also instructive in this era of reckless computer modeling where some fixed conclusion is already established that such modeling is no substitute for human reasoning,the late 17th century version of trying to model planetary dynamics using newly invented watches has resulted in a group of people who are unable to accept that one 24 hour rotation of the Earth causes day to turn to night and maintain that correlation for 1461 days/1461 rotations for 4 years/4 orbital circuits.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

2. Explain away the fact that in order to keep the same face to a body it orbits an object must rotate by 1° for each degree of motion around said body.
You have done neither, and I can assure you that you will not be able to.

Much better to explain why they experience 6 months of darkness followed by 6 months of daylight at the North/South poles as those coordinates turn in a 10366 mile circle/cycle to the central Sun due to the orbital behavior of the Earth.The numbskulls in the late 17th century tied daily and orbital motion to right ascension and celestial sphere geometry which is why they have so much difficulty with the idea of a separate polar daylight/darkness cycle coincident with the orbital period of the planet.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Claiming the Earth rotates 360° as opposed to 361° in 24 hrs while ignoring the results of a measurement that any person can easily take from any point on the planet with nothing more complicated than an ordinary clock or watch , is akin to claiming the Earth is flat while sitting in a spaceship watching a spherical Earth rotate beneath you.

Bye gkell1.

Any solid body from a person to a planet can only rotate 360 degrees,it is a single and independent motion and we reference that rotation off the orbital circuit of the Earth around the central Sun and like the geometric proportion of Pi,the nearest full rotation to one orbital cycle is inviolate at 365 1/4 rotations to 1 orbital circuit which expands out to the more familiar format of 1461 rotations to 4 orbital circuits.

There is nothing funny about the pretense of 361 degrees and the Earth "having to turn to the Sun",it is not what the Earth has to do but what people have to do that will eventually make the difference and it cannot come soon enough.

Cú Giobach

gkell1 wrote: »

What you are talking about is stellar circumpolar motion -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

A star returns to the same meridian 365 times in a non leap year and 366 times in a leap year,

No it doesn't it is 366 times in a non leap year and 367 in a leap year, just because you state something or believe it to be true does not make it so.
If you actually observe a star and count how many times it passes the meridian over the course of a year you will see that you are quite wrong.
Any star will be observed passing the meridian every 23hrs 56mins 4sec, this adds up to 366 passes in a year of 365 days, how do you explain away this observation?

If it is a choice whether to believe you, with nothing but your unverified statement of 365 rotations or the actual observed evidence of 366, unfortunately for you, the observed (and quite easily provable) evidence is the one of choice for those of us who think rationally.

gkell1

I have no problem handling the ins and outs of the late 17th century Royal Society empirical catastrophe which tries to force an imbalance between rotations and days but I am certainly curios as to why readers would suffer something so awful as to actually exceed a flat Earth ideology.It took empiricists 40 years to correct the blatant Piltdown Man hoax and this particular issue is many,many magnitudes worse with the difference that it needs not special expertise but only a reasonable people to affirm what I do with ease - that one 24 hour rotation of the Earth causes day to turn to night and subsequently temperature rises and falls,they will probably notice it more in winter when pipes and roads freeze.

Empiricists are welcome to 1465 rotations in 1461 days/4 years but how they are going to live with cause and effect is not my concern,it is an affliction of the mind and I can leave it at that.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

No it doesn't it is 366 times in a non leap year and 367 in a leap year, just because you state something or believe it to be true does not make it so.
If you actually observe a star and count how many times it passes the meridian over the course of a year you will see that you are quite wrong.
Any star will be observed passing the meridian every 23hrs 56mins 4sec, this adds up to 366 passes in a year of 365 days, how do you explain away this observation?

It is better to explain what works first in order to compare it with what went wrong,it is complicated and I do have reservations with the intricate details which are the labor of so many people from antiquity up to the invention of accurate watches for determining location East and West on the planet based on rotation at 4 minutes for each degree of rotation making a full rotation of the 24901 equatorial circumference in 24 hours,this is why time zones of 1 hour correspond to 15 degrees of geographical separation.

While Huygens explains the process, John Harrison created an additional set of Equation of Time tables for a leap year,he had to considering that the Sun returns 1461 times in 4 years -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. " Huygens

http://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

There are many excellent tutorials which follow the genuine technical path which lead to rotation in 24 hours and 1461 times in 4 years and I recommend them to any reader -

http://www.grand-illusions.com/articles/longitude/page04.shtml

The idea of the Earth turning 360 degrees to a star and the utterly dumb 361 degrees to the Sun should be obliterated with so much history behind the creation of the 24 hour day and its use as a tool for finding location on the planet,the way they averaged natural noon and converted it to clock noon is so enjoyable that only the most intellectually dull would oppose it -

"Draw a Meridian line upon a floor and then hang two plummets, each by a small thred or wire, directly over the said Meridian, at the distance of some 2. feet or more one from the other, as the smalness of the thred will admit. When the middle of the Sun (the Eye being placed so, as to bring both the threds into one line) appears to be in the same line exactly you are then immediately to set the Watch, not precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the Aequation of the day by the Table." Huygens

If people can't enjoy the process well they might as well believe that the Sun does not return 1461 times in 4 orbital circuits/4 years for when history is this plain and people still insist on an imbalance between rotations and days then our civilization is finished for what do people tell their kids when they ask the most basic meteorological question of all - why does the temp go up and down daily ?.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If it is a choice whether to believe you, with nothing but your unverified statement of 365 rotations or the actual observed evidence of 366, unfortunately for you, the observed (and quite easily provable) evidence is the one of choice for those of us who think rationally.

The calendar cycle is a really enjoyable way to understand the daily and orbital motion of the Earth as it formats two cycles into a linear progression of equal 24 hours days and rotations and by virtue of the calendar cycle of 1461 rotations it allows for a linear progression of years.The reader only has to ask where the 1/4 day goes each year to come to understand that the 365 1/4 days which equates to 365 1/4 rotations drifts through Mar 1st in non leap years and picked up by the Feb 29th day/night cycle and 24 hour rotation which sets everything back roughly into sync.

As long as the reader is willing to maintain cause and effect there will be no problem and the dumb idea that the Earth's rotation does not cause day to turn to night,effectively what 1465 rotations in 1461 days tries to do,will be consigned to a warning lesson for those who use computers to model conclusions.

Cú Giobach

If your view is correct then any given star would be observed passing the meridian every 24 hours resulting in 365 passes a year and the same stars visible in the same positions, at the same time every night.
Since this is not what actually happens and any given star passes the meridian every 23hrs 56mins resulting in 366 passes a year and different stars visible at the same time during the year, then your view is incorrect.

Because of your evasion of this point which is central to the discussion there is no reason for me to carry on here.

gkell1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If your view is correct then any given star would be observed passing the meridian every 24 hours resulting in 365 passes a year and the same stars visible at the same time every night.
Since this is not what actually happens and any given star passes the meridian every 23hrs 56mins resulting in 366 passes a year and different stars visible at the same time every night, then your view is incorrect.

Because of your evasion of this point which is central to the discussion there is no reason for me to carry on here.

I see it just as much a meteorological issue as an astronomical one,after all who wants to deny that one 24 hour rotation of the Earth causes the temperature to go up and down or who would want to ?.The basis is therefore not the muddleheaded 17th century view of right ascension but what Feb 29th does in context of the 1461 days of the calendar system and its links to 1461 rotations in 4 years.

Places like Newgrange and Knowth will tell you that astronomy is in our blood,so old that the Egyptian civilization had barely got going while our ancestors were building these magnificent astronomical clocks which reflect their knowledge of astronomy,construction,surveying and all the things we pride ourselves on today with the exception of astronomy.

Meteorologists cannot accept anything other than the proper balance between rotations and days within the confines of 4 orbital circuits and so what if people made a silly error a few centuries ago,nobody here and no student has to live with it.

Su Campu

Sorry gkell, you're obviously someone with way too much time on your hands. I've tried and tried again reading your longwinded posts but I STILL don't have a clue what point you're trying to make. I think at the heart of it all it may be a political one, a rage against the machine, using this day vs night argument as a carrier. Whatever it is, it's getting mighty tiresome.

gkell1

Su Campu wrote: »

Sorry gkell, you're obviously someone with way too much time on your hands. I've tried and tried again reading your longwinded posts but I STILL don't have a clue what point you're trying to make. I think at the heart of it all it may be a political one, a rage against the machine, using this day vs night argument as a carrier. Whatever it is, it's getting mighty tiresome.

You poor thing,had you read that there are 1461 rotations in 1461 days within the confines of 4 years/4 orbital circuits you may comprehend the primary meteorological fact that there is,that the temperature goes up and down daily due to the rotation of the Earth.

No rage here,the freedom to enjoy the balance between rotations and days contrasts with something so utterly dumb that it exceeds a flat Earth ideology and that it is taught to kids speaks for itself.

Get the point indeed !,if it could be any worse I wouldn't know how other than as an Irish person I would suffer to see my own people go along with a tragedy where none of the most basic planetary facts survive and let me finally remind you - the Earth turns once in 24 hours,365 1/4 times for one orbital circuit and the balance of 1461 rotations for 1461 days.

kwik

I wish you would close this thread su as it makes no sense whatsoever. I too have read it and now i have a headache. Thank you

Su Campu

So your point is that the temperature does rise and fall due to the Earth's rotation? But sure everyone knows that!

gkell1

Su Campu wrote: »

So your point is that the temperature does rise and fall due to the Earth's rotation? But sure everyone knows that!

Listen here,when a child or student asks why the temperature rises and falls daily you make sure you tell them that it is the rotation of the Earth that causes it with the additional information of 1461 rotations in 1461 days/4 years.It means you have moved above the ignorance on par with a flat Earther or those who believe 1465 rotations for 1461 days because there is only one fact possible.

To be treated like this by my own people is unconscionable but as long as the basic planetary facts are restored then it will be worth it.

Su Campu

Ok, I think this thread has run its course. You have obvious underlying issues or beliefs that have little to do with meteorology or astronomy, and for that reason I'm closing the thread.