Re: Precession of the equinoxes ?


"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E%d4h.140932$lT5.113561@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"OG" <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4rcp1uFr0n5aU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:cPS3h.139567$lT5.64307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > "OG" <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:4ra0abForqm7U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > | "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | news:_8x3h.136769$lT5.47357@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | >
| > | > "OG" <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:4r7ihoFq5i5kU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > | "Tom Linden" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | news:op.tikg1lb1zgicya@xxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | >I was looking at some data,
| > | > | >
| > | > | > http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I could not figure out why the duration between Winter
solstice
| > and
| > | > the
| > | > | > immediately
| > | > | > following perhelion jumps around. We know that the perhelion
| > should
| > | > | > advance one
| > | > | > day on our calendars about every 71 years. So you would think
| > there
| > | > | > should be about
| > | > | > a 20 minute increase from one year to the next. Anybody have
an
| > | > | > explanation?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Tom
| > | > |
| > | > | The most plausible explanation I've seen is that the 'smoothly
| > | > advancing'
| > | > | perihelion you expect is based on the barycentre of the
Earth/Moon
| > | > system,
| > | > | but the tabulated perihelion is the actual geocentric one which
| > depends
| > | > on
| > | > | the lunar phase about that time.
| > | > |
| > | > | An interesting exercise to plot the earth-moon position around
this
| > time
| > | > | each year.
| > | >
| > | > What does perihelion (closest approach to the sun) have
| > | > to do with the Earth-Moon system? Perihelion is not perigee.
| > | > Nor is Winter solstice connected with perihelion.
| > | >
| > | > The ONLY reason the calendar is "jumping around" is because
there
| > | > are not exactly 365 days in a year. When you've grown up you'll
| > | > learn about leap years.
|
| I'd like you to justify that statement - see the challenge at the bottom
of
| this post.

Challenge ducked.


| > | > Be honest, OG, you fabricated the implausible explanation you've
seen
| > | > all by yourself, you lying ***, and now you are trying to impress
| > | > "We" with your total lack of knowledge, you fuckwit.
| > | > If "We" knows that the "perhelion" should advance one day on "our"
| > | > calendars about every 71 years then "We" is another blustering
bigot
| > | > like you.
| > |
| > | Of course, yes the simple 4 year step cycle due to leap years is
obvious
| > | when you think about it. Simple, easily explained and wrong.
| > |
| > | Have a quick look at this and see what I mean
| > | http://www.gwynnefamily.org.uk/astro/Perihelion/index.htm
| > |
| > | By the way, this page dates back to early 2004.
| >
| > Why not make the plot in rotations of Earth rather than time
| > to eliminate the inaccurate calendar?
| > Simple to do with a spread***, but remember to use a sidereal day:
| > 1 sidereal day = 23.9344696 hours
| > 1 solar day = 24.0 hours.
| > 1 year = 365.2422 SOLAR days
| > Calculation:
| > 365.2422 *24.0/23.9344696 = 366.2422 rotations
| > per revolution.
| > That's one more turn.
| > To see why, imagine the Earth keeping one face toward the sun just
| > as the moon keeps one face toward the Earth. There would be zero
| > days per year, the sun always overhead, but the Earth would turn once.
| > The ellipse of the moon's orbit produces this effect:
| > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051113.html
| > Notice we can see more than a hemisphere and the moon's apparent
| > size changes with distance. Thus we KNOW the moon's orbit is
| > elliptical.
|
| True but irrelevant.

Precession of the equinoxes ?

Nothing to do with what you are describing.

|
| > | I'm still wondering why there is so much anomosity in your posts?
| > |
| > Years of dealing with arrogant idiots, I'm sorry to have to say.
| > You'll find me reasonable if you do not make assertions that are
simply
| > untrue.
|
| So which of my statements in this thread are demonstrably false?

I've told you:
You fabricated the "implausible explanation you've seen" all by yourself,
you lying ***.

I said what is 'demonstrably' false. You think its a false statement -
demonstrate it!


|
| > Ask me a question. If I don't know the answer then I'll find out,
| > work it out or I'll say I don't know. Not all knowledge is in yet,
there
| > is much that is unknown to all. There is no shame in not knowing,
| > but there is in bluster. Science is finding out the unknown, not
creating
| > it or misleading others.
| > Tom Linden's statement "We know" is false. He's blustering,
| > providing a misleading statement. Which hat he invented 71 years
| > from only he knows. The same applies to you, there was no
| > "plausible explanation".
|
| Yes there was - because your 'plausible explanation' is not sufficient
to
| predict perihelion events.

How the *** does *anything I say* make your fabricated explanation
correct, you moron?

You've ducked the challenge to prove that measuring perihelion passage in
sidereal time gives the same results as USNO


Mad dOG: 1+1 = 3
Androcles: You made that up, the sky is blue.
Mad dOG: No I didn't, I'm right. You are wrong.
Fucking idiot.

Noticeable that you've ducked the challenge to use the sidereal clock to
generate a table of perihelion passages.

I wondered whether you were maybe very clever but unable to express yourself
clearly - it happens. However if you really were that clever you'd be able
to meet the challenge.

Quack.




.

Quantcast