Re: Something new
- From: Quadibloc <jsavard@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:58:24 -0700
oriel36 wrote:
it all boils down to a new way to look at
things,using the change in orbital orientation to explain what
'variable axial tilt' tries to do.
But if that's the case, then establishment astronomy is not wrong.
Because we don't claim that planets change their inclinations - at
least not over the course of a single year. (Precession is very slow,
taking thousands of years, so it does not cause the seasons.)
Instead, the Earth is always tilted the same way, but because it
orbits the Sun, the change in its position in that orbit changes
whether the tilt points "to" the Sun or "away" from the Sun in the
Northern Hemisphere.
No variable axial tilt - just a change in orbital orientation.
In a previous post, you claimed that it was impossible for the
"sidereal day" to be regularly 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds -
because that would contradict the fact that the Earth's orbit is not
uniform, since it is elliptical instead of circular.
That would only make sense if it was *true* that locations on the
Earth "turned to face the Sun in 24 hours exactly", because then a
regular synodic motion of the Earth, plus an irregular orbital motion
could not yield a regular axial motion for the Earth. But because that
isn't true - you keep reminding us of the Equation of Time - that
contradiction does not arise.
Instead, the elliptical orbit of the Earth is one of the causes of the
Equation of Time.
You may feel I am mistaken, and you may have reasons to do so, but at
the moment you appear to be ignoring the logical consequences of the
claims you are making, which leads to you contradicting yourself,
while establishment astronomy - despite occasional errors and
oversimplifications on this or that website - presents a picture that
is complete and logically consistent to those who understand it
properly.
It appears that the beginning of all this is the fact that you reject
as invalid the use of the "fixed stars" as representing a good
approximation to the motionless backdrop against which motions in the
Solar System can be isolated. (Copernicus himself did not scruple
against this approximation.) Then, by unnecessarily burdening yourself
with complexity in understanding the motions of the Solar System, you
went wrong somewhere in the enlarged mass of additions and
subtractions involved in keeping track of these motions - leading to
your claim that current astronomy isn't merely using an inaesthetic or
otherwise unjustified perspective on its subject matter, but is
actually in error regarding the facts of the phenomena.
I would like to lead you out of error into knowledge, but as you
refuse to hold your position up to continued examination, and only
repeat yourself anew, you make it difficult to find your misconception
(or, indeed, for me to find mine if, against all my understanding, I -
and a great many current astronomers - am the one who is mistaken).
John Savard
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Something new
- From: oriel36
- Re: Something new
- References:
- Something new
- From: oriel36
- Something new
- Prev by Date: Re: approach to decrypt a riddle text
- Next by Date: Re: The Ethos is Coming!
- Previous by thread: Something new
- Next by thread: Re: Something new
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
