The sun is randomly out of position.

If you can prove that current models match known observations from the 19th and 20th century, then I will accept the sun is exactly where it should be.

The earth is beginning to tilt back upon its TRUE norms relative to the sun.

This is really irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that basic observation should solve the debate. Since I'm assuming, you can't go back in time... then the very next best thing would be for you to actually pull up historical records and compare and contrast. You know, the basic ground work of science, i.e field work. You know, the hard shit.. and not punching a few keys into your gps controlled telescope.

If you can prove that current models match known observations from the 19th and 20th century, then I will accept the sun is exactly where it should be. And, note: I am not asking for copy and paste hubris. In order to successfully prove your point, I will really be impressed if you actually went out and compared actual historical records, i.e. went to the library and came back to us all. You know... textual evidence.

Here are my measurements of the sun this evening. First, here's a picture of the sun I shot on a tripod with my camera and a Thousand Oaks Type 2+ solar filter:
[link to www.flickr.com (secure)]
It was a bit cloudy, but still a serviceable photo for these purposes. EXIF data intact, the time zone is eastern time, 4 hours behind UT. I left the camera undisturbed for several hours and then took a 1 second exposure without the solar filter:
[link to www.flickr.com (secure)]
Yes, for convenience I was shooting through my window the whole time. Not going for pretty astrophotography here. I then layered the two images together so that the sun's previous position in the image could be directly seen in the second image. I also used dynamic background subtraction to remove the light pollution:
[link to www.flickr.com (secure)]
I astrometrically solved the image here:
[link to nova.astrometry.net]
The astrometry isn't perfect, but again, it's serviceable for our purposes. Note that the resolution of the image is 12 arcseconds per pixel. 20/20 vision is the ability to resolve a spatial separation of 1 minute of arc, 60 arcseconds, so this image is about 5 times higher in resolution than that.

Now, I used my spreadsheet to calculate the expected location and geometric alt/az of the sun using Newcomb's theory:

Input
Year 2016
month 7
day 7
hour (UT) 23
minute 16
second 48
W Longitude (Decimal deg) 82
Latitude (Decimal deg) (N+, S-) 27
Height above sea level (meters) 0
Pressure (mb) 0
Temperature (Centigrade) 25

Solar Coordinates
Apparent Right Ascension at Equinox of date
Hours 7
Minutes 10
Seconds 27
Apparent Declination at Equinox of date
Degrees 22
Minutes 26
Seconds 46

Altitude (degrees) 13.3992166
Azimuth (degrees, 0 North) 288.6105497

[link to dropcanvas.com]

I then converted the geometric altitude and azimuth to J2000 equatorial coordinates at the time of the second photo:

Input
Year 2016
month 7
day 8
hour (UT) 2
minute 2
second 14
W Longitude (Decimal deg) 82
Latitude (Decimal deg) (N+, S-) 27
Height above sea level (meters) 0
Pressure (mb) 0
Temperature (Centigrade) 15

Convert to RA and Dec
Geometric Altitude 13.3992166
Azimuth 288.6105497

RA J2000
9
55
25.28
Dec J2000
22
31
29.9
[link to dropcanvas.com]

Plugging these numbers into the astrometrically solved image shows that the Sun's expected location (the green circle) matches its observed location:

[link to www.flickr.com (secure)]

Yet the North Star *remains* the North star. This simple observation belies everything else you wrote.

K, done.


And yes, I made my spreadsheet myself, this isn't just "copy/paste BS." The spreadsheet is based on Newcomb's numbers for calculating the position of the sun, using Jean Meeus' truncated method published decades ago. I used the actual book, from the library.
[link to www.worldcat.org]
You can verify it against Newcomb's own book as well:
[link to www.worldcat.org]

Wait what?? I don't agree with his viewpoint. The opposing view if you bothered to read his eloquent post.

Do they record the Sun's colour?

.

Prøve it please. This is info was provided by the good Dr V Tepes

*color*

And why the extra period for no reason? Not very grammatically correct.

*colour*



It's a secret gang sign.

 

By rules of logic, he has to prove what he says is correct. I do not have to prove what he says is wrong. He has provided no such proof.

Hmm logic like using NASA imagery with time stamps to prove his point? Where's your contradicting evidence?
I'll take Dr V Tepes word over yours anyday.

Your rules of logic are illogical if they do not apply to yourself.

It isn't the images. It is his interpretation. First off, he starts by assuming that the Earth is rather then allowing the data to speak for itself. It is called affirming the consequent.

The biggest problem is that he doesn't know what a sun synchronous orbit is.

[link to modis.gsfc.nasa.gov]

[link to earthobservatory.nasa.gov]

[link to www.encyclopedia.com]

Understanding a sun synchronous orbit explains his observation completely without resorting to the wobbling Earth garbage.

The northern hemisphere of Earth tilts toward the Sun June/July/August. It tilts away from the Sun in January/February/March. Since the satellite is oriented with the Sun, the Earth will seem to wobble back and forth throughout the year, which is exactly what he is showing. Just the effect of a Sun synchronous orbit.

That makes zero sense. My claim is nothing has changed. The extraordinary claim is that things have changed so he, and you, have to provide extraordinary evidence to prove your claim.

Only those images he is referring to are 24 hrs apart. Please pay attention

Only one pair. The others are one orbit apart.

Irrelevant

K, done.


And yes, I made my spreadsheet myself, this isn't just "copy/paste BS." The spreadsheet is based on Newcomb's numbers for calculating the position of the sun, using Jean Meeus' truncated method published decades ago. I used the actual book, from the library.
[link to www.worldcat.org]
You can verify it against Newcomb's own book as well:
[link to www.worldcat.org]

This is unrelated, or not, but my family was at a BBQ on the 15th, there was a visible planet, in broad daylight, as it was around 6 pm in Southern Idaho. We couldn't figure out what it was at first, but it didn't move. It was fairly large too, as planets go in the daytime☻. I have looked and found something on Venus being visible durning the daytime but that was a few years ago. Anyone else see this? It was visible toward the SW. I haven't been able to spot it again but I have a lot of trees at my house.

Wow I am impressed. You did exactly what the AC ask for. Even before he ask incredible. He must be impressed out of his boots.

K, done.


And yes, I made my spreadsheet myself, this isn't just "copy/paste BS." The spreadsheet is based on Newcomb's numbers for calculating the position of the sun, using Jean Meeus' truncated method published decades ago. I used the actual book, from the library.
[link to www.worldcat.org]
You can verify it against Newcomb's own book as well:
[link to www.worldcat.org]