Re: Planets and Stars - an idea


"John F. Eldredge" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:75r177F164m4eU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:57:54 +0000, Terence Nesbit wrote:

"John F. Eldredge" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:75oavcF18vle3U2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:38:58 +0000, Terence Nesbit wrote:

My
point for the importance of this 18 hour day, the shape of the light
and the night, is to move to the other positions. We know that in 182
days, roughly, the parts of the Earth receiving light and night will
change. For 90 of those days, at a minimum, the south pole does not
receive any light. After this, the southern pole receives light
progressively until the Sun reaches a point of 23.5 degrees (and the
Northern pole does not receive any light). Based on these facts, the
Earth has to move in some way, which is where the theories are
important. If we accept that the poles do not receive light at the
same time, we can already conclude that the Sun is never fully
centered on the planet.

The Earth does move, in two different ways. It rotates on its axis
daily, and it moves in its orbit around the Sun, taking one year to
make a full orbit. At the solstices, the combination of the two
movements means that one pole is tipped 23.5 degrees towards the Sun,
and one pole is tipped 23.5 degrees away from the Sun. At the
equinoxes in fall and spring, neither pole is tipped towards the Sun,
meaning that both hemispheres receive 12 hours of sunlight and 12 hours
of darkness.


I would agree with your assessment, but it has been pointed out in
previous posts that both poles cannot receive sunlight at the same time.
It has also been established that the axis does not move closer to the
Sun from that 23 degree tilt. The reason certain points below the poles
receive 12 hours of sunlight and darkness, roughly, is because of their
positions on the planet Earth located at livable latitudes and
longitudes.

At any given time, half the Earth is receiving sunlight. During northern-
hemisphere summer, most of that half-Earth is in the northern
hemisphere. During southern hemisphere summer (northern-hemisphere
winter), most of that half-Earth is in the southern hemisphere. At the
spring and fall equinox, when the Earth's alignment doesn't point either
pole towards the Sun, the northern and southern hemispheres receive equal
amounts of light. At this point, both the North Pole and the South Pole
are receiving sunlight, but only on the side towards the Sun.


And I have already explained that only one pole receives light at a time, no matter which pole you consider, although you have claimed that I have not stated so. This is why at 75 N Lat, from Dec 2 to Feb 2, that site does not receive any light (which was posted by someone else in this thread first.). I would not have said it if this information was not considered. Dec. 2nd precedes the winter solstice.


If you live anywhere near a science museum, I would suggest that you
visit it, and examine an orrery (a mechanical model showing the Earth,
Sun, and possibly the Moon and the other planets). You will be able to
see the manner in which the Earth moves around the Sun, and how this
affects the hours of sunlight seen by a particular point on Earth.


Yes, museums are good, but part of the problem for me is their depiction
of what Earth does and its relationship to the Sun, considering the
facts that we now know.

The depictions in the science museums of what Earth does and its
relationship to the sun match the facts that have been observed. Your
theory does not match the facts that have been observed.

--
John F. Eldredge -- john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

Here are facts that have been observed, besides the above - Venus and Uranus appear to be in retrograde orbit. This is, of course, against most current theories about the heliocentric model. Perhaps they have a theory, but it differs when pertinent and is left there - ie: retrograde orbit. The dates and times of sunrise at different latitudes from 20 degrees to 60 degrees N latitude matches the shape of the sun that I have posited. So, it is argued that it does match the model that is accepted, although not in the models that I was told to try. Perhaps they were explained wrong - or as has been stated, I did the experiment wrong somehow.

Terence

.

Relevant Pages

  • Main Establishment Lies
    ... Main Establishment Lies ... BLAMING THE SUN - AGAIN! ... Pole – S. Pole) to a "quadrupole structure" where the ... the Earth, or "temporary suppression of global warming". ...
    (soc.culture.indonesia)
  • Re: Magdalenian experiment (year eight)
    ... the future observatory with a wooden pole. ... rising sun on the equinoxes ... The bird goddess of the Neolithic Balkans, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Shadow of a Pole and Azimuth
    ... and let it cast a shadow from the Sun onto the surface. ... | of the pole, and draw a line along one edge. ... Suppose I do this when the Sun ... Imagine the Earth rotated on its own axis once a year, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Shadow of a Pole and Azimuth
    ... and let it cast a shadow from the Sun onto the ... | of the pole, and draw a line along one edge. ... Imagine the Earth rotated on its own axis once a year, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Surprises from the Suns South Pole (Forwarded)
    ... Surprises from the Sun's South Pole ... Although very close to the minimum of its 11-year sunspot cycle, ... The solar storms, which were confined to the equatorial regions, produced ... it measured the temperatures of the large polar coronal holes. ...
    (sci.astro)