| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 | I've been through the desert on a thread with no name
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9251
6/17/2008 9:42 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
Himself, I'm going to have a last try at this with you because it is possible that it is simply the way that you are expressing yourself that is the cause of our disagreement. Can you answer the following questions? If the Sun is where it should be:
1. Do you agree at Latitude you gave the Sun will be directly south about 80 degrees above the horizon at noon on Solstice?
~>I agree that anywhere north of the Tropic of Cancer at solar noon, the sun will be (relatively speaking) directly south<~
2. Do you agree that the shadow cast by a vertical stick at noon at that location will point directly due North?
~>absolutely<!
3. Due you agree that if you draw a line between the top of the stick and the end of its shadow the line will make an angle of about 80 degrees with the horizontal shadow at noon on solstice?
~>NO. The sun at 90 degrees above the horizon would produce no shadow. The sun at 80 degrees will produce a shadow at ten degrees: 90 degrees minus 80 degrees = ten degrees<~
4. Do you agree that if you draw a line between the top of the stick and the end of its shadow the line will make an angle of about 10 degrees with the vertical stick at noon on solstice?
~>Yes! Now you've got it!<~
===============================================
Not aimed at you.
Just comment in general for this topic:
I do not doubt people are posting honest observations;
As they did in 86' and 06'
IMHO Calling them names serves no constructive purpose.
I searched for a reason they might see an anomaly such as sun appearing out of place and found "wobble" to explain temporary displacements from normal axis tilt. Quoting: himself 453341
Answer the fucking questions... |
| Menow
User ID: 453087
6/17/2008 9:45 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
So, 453229... Care to explain why Polaris is exactly where it belongs all night every night for every astronomer who cares to look or any casual observer who wants to line up two points with it?
I'm sorry Menow but this thread is now starting to fill up with bad science both on the pro and anti side of the 'debate'
The relatively fixed point of Polaris in Northern skies indicates that the axis the earth is rotating around has remained constant and is pointing in the same direction(ish), it DOES NOT indicate that the inclination of this axis to the Ecliptic has remained constant. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 318980
Of course it does. The Ecliptic is a flat plane. Polaris is a point above that plane. Earth's axis is a line piercing that plane and intersecting (nearly) the point that is Polaris. You can't tilt the Earth relative to the Ecliptic plane without that axis line then missing Polaris. That would put it in a new place in the sky and it would then circle the new pole spot with all the other stars.
It IS conceivable that the Earth’s axis of rotation has remained pointing in the same direction – roughly at Polaris, but its orbital path around the Sun has changed, altering the angle between the axis of Rotation and the orbital plane Quoting: Anonymous Coward 318980
You are suggesting the scenario that the ecliptic plane has tilted and also Earth's axis tilted to the same amount in the opposite direction, keeping the axis pointed to Polaris?? That is the only way I can see your point. Yes, that would be theoretically possible, but I don't think it is "bad science" to ignore it as a real possibility.
There is however ZERO evidence that this has happened - if it did happen the rising and setting points and times of the Sun would change and the seasonal change in what constellations were visible would be altered- they haven't as anyone who is capable of some basic astronomy can versify. It is possible to directly measure the inclination of the Earth's axis of rotation to the Ecliptic at Solstice
[ link to www.godlikeproductions.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 453420
6/17/2008 9:45 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
visit links for full article and to nitpick out whatever you feel supports your point of view
I assert that earth DOES wobble.
The degree of each wobble is not my affair. Quoting: himself 453341
Yes, indeed the earth DOES wobblie...VERY SLIGHTLY. This is the very well known Chandler Wobble. But it is microscopic compared to what is being claimed here. Don't you know the difference? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9251
6/17/2008 9:46 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
My bad...I didn't see that you were too lazy to split the quote... |
| Menow
User ID: 453087
6/17/2008 9:51 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
1983 Internet Protocol adopted = Internet born
>>>>>>>the original ARPANET adopted IP on 1.1.1983,
when it became a major part of the Internet.<<<<<
TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) is the basic communication language or protocol of the Internet.
[ link to searchnetworking.techtarget.com]
"later came to be unversally called the internet'"
----------->"LATER"<--------------
>>Universally<<<<
stupid ass
In 1983, TCP/IP protocols replaced NCP as the principal protocol of the ARPANET, and the ARPANET became just one component of the fledgling Internet.
[ link to en.wikipedia.org]
"fledgling internet"
I was there
Where was 'menow' in the 1970's and 1980's ?
...
During the 1970s, the ARPANET grew to connect research institutes and laboratories supported by the Department of Defense in various parts of the USA. Many of these were university laboratories studying data processing and computer networks, which developed the TCP/IP network and its applications for the Internet.
In 1980 IP became the official standard of the US Department of Defense, and the original ARPANET adopted IP on 1.1.1983, when it became a major part of the Internet. At this time, Defense Department computers were separated from the ARPANET to form their own MILNET network. In 1986 the NSFNET constructs its own backbone network to run in parallel to the ARPANET. And, finally in 1990, with everyone having gone over to using the newer, faster Internet backbone network, the original ARPANET with its network address 10.0.0.0 was shut down. ...
www.funet.fi/index/FUNET/ history/internet/en/arpanet.html
In 1980 IP became the official standard of the US Department of Defense
Adoption of "Internet Protocol" by ARPANET
on "1.1.1983
when it became a major part of the Internet".
At this time, Defense Department computers were separated from the ARPANET to form their own MILNET network.
1.1.1983 DOD split off from Internet to form MILNET
1990 ARPANET shut down
----------------------------------------------------
Now that it's conculsively proven "menow' is full of BS
and I'm posting fact based posts...
Read my previous posts about how to find your latitude and determine sun angle at noon on June 21.
The hyperbolic BS is actually the idea that if you found someone to be mistaken on one obscure point, that they would then be conclusively "full of BS". |
| Menow
User ID: 453087
6/17/2008 9:57 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
The old guy who noticed a wobble in 1986 and commented on it to me, (from his point of view) also noticed the sun "back in it's place" the next year. Quoting: himself 453341
And you actually think that between the two choices: he was mistaken or that Earth was actually "wobbling", that it is more likely that it was wobbling? |
| Menow
User ID: 453087
6/17/2008 10:03 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
Not aimed at you.
Just comment in general for this topic:
I do not doubt people are posting honest observations;
As they did in 86' and 06'
IMHO Calling them names serves no constructive purpose.
I searched for a reason they might see an anomaly such as sun appearing out of place and found "wobble" to explain temporary displacements from normal axis tilt. Quoting: himself 453341
Well, DUH! Of course that would explain it, but it just isn't happening since there is no time, day or night, 365 days a year when the sky is not being observed and tracked by astronomers in some form. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 318980
6/17/2008 10:39 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
So, 453229... Care to explain why Polaris is exactly where it belongs all night every night for every astronomer who cares to look or any casual observer who wants to line up two points with it?
I'm sorry Menow but this thread is now starting to fill up with bad science both on the pro and anti side of the 'debate'
The relatively fixed point of Polaris in Northern skies indicates that the axis the earth is rotating around has remained constant and is pointing in the same direction(ish), it DOES NOT indicate that the inclination of this axis to the Ecliptic has remained constant.
Of course it does. The Ecliptic is a flat plane. Polaris is a point above that plane. Earth's axis is a line piercing that plane and intersecting (nearly) the point that is Polaris. You can't tilt the Earth relative to the Ecliptic plane without that axis line then missing Polaris. That would put it in a new place in the sky and it would then circle the new pole spot with all the other stars.
It IS conceivable that the Earth’s axis of rotation has remained pointing in the same direction – roughly at Polaris, but its orbital path around the Sun has changed, altering the angle between the axis of Rotation and the orbital plane
You are suggesting the scenario that the ecliptic plane has tilted and also Earth's axis tilted to the same amount in the opposite direction, keeping the axis pointed to Polaris?? That is the only way I can see your point. Yes, that would be theoretically possible, but I don't think it is "bad science" to ignore it as a real possibility.
There is however ZERO evidence that this has happened - if it did happen the rising and setting points and times of the Sun would change and the seasonal change in what constellations were visible would be altered- they haven't as anyone who is capable of some basic astronomy can versify. It is possible to directly measure the inclination of the Earth's axis of rotation to the Ecliptic at Solstice
[ link to www.godlikeproductions.com] |
| Geogal
User ID: 373387
6/17/2008 10:49 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
visit links for full article and to nitpick out whatever you feel supports your point of view
I assert that earth DOES wobble.
The degree of each wobble is not my affair.
ScienceDaily (Jun. 26, 2006) — New technologies are enabling scientists to
[ link to www.sciencedaily.com]
Earth's irregular, shorter term wobbles, lasting a week or so, have been more difficult to study, partly because these motions are usually masked by those of more prominent wobbles. Now, scientists in Belgium and France have taken advantage of a quirk in the pattern of large-scale motions and the advent of the Global Positioning System (GPS) to pin down short-term wobbles that occurred from November 2005 through February 2006....weather patterns in the northern hemisphere played a significant role. Both the location of high- or low-pressure centers--for example, over Asia or northern Europe--and the relationship of these weather systems to each other played a measurable role in creating, or "exciting," small, short-term wobbles, they report.
"Over these three and a half months, the pole position traced small loops, ranging in size from that of a sheet of A4 [8-1/2x11 inch] paper down to that of a cell phone, and it remained within a one meter [yard] square during these four months."
ONly observable through GPS... who's going to be able to notice this anywhere on the planet?
A Mystery Of Earth's Wobble Solved: It's The Ocean (Jul. 18, 2000) — For over a century, scientists have sought to understand the cause of one of Earth's wobbling motions as it rotates. Now, thanks to recently developed models, the mystery is solved...
[ link to www.sciencedaily.com]
"Its period is only around 433 days, or just 1.2 years, meaning that it takes that amount of time to complete one wobble. The amplitude of the wobble amounts to about 20 feet at the North Pole."
Not in one day, or an hour or so... 20 feet isn't even close to even 1 degree in latitude.
Also, if I remember correctly, Chandler wobble dances around the accepted north and doesn't continue wandering away from said point.
Geophysicist Discovers Why Earth 'Wobbles' (May 20, 2004) — The earth wobbles in space. This has been known for over a century by astronomers, and thanks to global positioning system (GPS) technologies, this wobble has been tracked with a precision of a few ...
[ link to www.sciencedaily.com]
"To make the Earth wobble, large amounts of mass need to be moved from one place to another so that the Earth is “off balance,” according to NASA-funded researcher Blewitt, who said the North Pole then adjusts to a new position to compensate. Large amounts of water are displaced seasonally when glaciers and ice sheets melt in spring, for example. The mass shifts back when they refreeze in winter."
BTW... Neat articles. Thanks for the links! |
| Geogal
User ID: 373387
6/17/2008 10:54 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
Also, for those I've read (maybe not here) that believe the earth was thrown out of timing or axial alignment due to the 2004 Sumatra earthquake, yes it was... but again, not so that any human by eye could perceive it.
"The 2004 Indonesian Earthquake and Earth's Rotation
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use "Back" to return here.
Since the great 2004 Indonesian earthquake I have gotten numerous inquiries about whether the earthquake affected the earth's axis.
What was affected was the so-called Chandler Wobble. Objects that are not perfectly spherical do not rotate around a single axis. That's just the laws of physics. I did the math in graduate school. Unless you know tensors, you don't want to go there. Anyway, the earth doesn't rotate smoothly around its axis, instead, the poles wander in rough circles about 10 meters in diameter. Another way to say it is your latitude changes a bit (0.7 seconds of arc) over a cycle of about a year. Anything that redistributes mass on the earth, even weather systems and the circulation of the oceans, can affect this wobble detectably. Think of a bunch of people on a merry-go-round all running over to one side. Since we can routinely locate ourselves nowadays to accuracies of meters, and precise surveys can locate points to millimeters, we can detect even these tiny changes. What happened here was a big chunk of the northern Indian Ocean lurched northward 10-20 meters relative to Asia. It also descended several meters into the mantle, and compressed and elevated northern Sumatra by several meters. It also likely triggered big submarine landslides that caused the tsunamis. So a fair amount of mass got redistributed. The U.S. Naval Observatory tracks this stuff and will tell you all you want to know about it, but I haven't see anything posted about the big quake yet. However, the US Geological Survey posted this:
Question: What effect did this earthquake have on the rotation of the earth? Answer: Richard Gross at JPL has modeled the coseismic effect on the Earth's rotation of the December 26 earthquake in Indonesia by using the PREM model for the elastic properties of the Earth and the Harvard centroid-moment tensor solution for the source properties of the earthquake. The result is:
change in length of day: -2.676 microseconds
polar motion excitation X : -0.670 milliarcseconds
polar motion excitation Y: 0.475 milliarcseconds
Since the length of the day can be measured with an accuracy of about 20 microseconds, this model predicts that the change in the length-of-day caused by the earthquake is much too small to be observed. And, since the location of the earthquake was near the equator, this model predicts that the change in polar motion excitation is also rather small, being about 0.82 milliarcsecond in amplitude. Such a small change in polar motion excitation will also be difficult to detect.
Note this is a calculation, not an observation. What it means is the day became shorter by 0.0000027 seconds (Great - I don't have enough time as it is!). It will take about 1,000 years for that to throw the earth out of sync with clocks by one second, and other things like tidal friction will have much greater effects. The excitation is the motion of the actual pole, around which the earth is rotating at any given instant, compared to the "average" pole we use on maps and globes. One second of arc is 30 meters, or 3000 centimeters, so 0.8 milliseconds is 2.5 centimeters or about an inch.
How exactly did the earthquake change the earth's rotation speed? It seems to have done so because the earthquake involved plate convergence, and effectively reduced the earth's equatorial circumference by a few millimeters while pushing denser material into the earth, like an ice skater pulling in her arms. That would also reduce the earth's equatorial radius a fraction of a millimeter. The overall fault slip was 10-20 meters, but some of that was directed north-south, so the east-west compression was smaller. The effect would be further reduced by the fact that the crust above the fault zone would have been uplifted, resulting in a bulge that would somewhat offset the reduction in circumference. Not all the local compression would affect the equator anyway, just like buttoning a shirt that's too tight pulls your waist in a little, but not as much as the gap between the last buttons.
The Earth's rotational properties are described by its moment of inertia, which is proportional to the square of its equatorial radius. The calculated change in rotation rate is about 3 x 10-11 of the length of the day, implying a similar change of 3 x 10-11 in the earth's equatorial radius (about 0.4 millimeters) or about 2.4 millimeters (1/10 inch) shortening of the equatorial circumference."
[link to www.uwgb.edu] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 318980
6/17/2008 10:57 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
The relatively fixed point of Polaris in Northern skies indicates that the axis the earth is rotating around has remained constant and is pointing in the same direction(ish), it DOES NOT indicate that the inclination of this axis to the Ecliptic has remained constant.
Of course it does. The Ecliptic is a flat plane. Polaris is a point above that plane. Earth's axis is a line piercing that plane and intersecting (nearly) the point that is Polaris. You can't tilt the Earth relative to the Ecliptic plane without that axis line then missing Polaris. That would put it in a new place in the sky and it would then circle the new pole spot with all the other stars.
It IS conceivable that the Earth’s axis of rotation has remained pointing in the same direction – roughly at Polaris, but its orbital path around the Sun has changed, altering the angle between the axis of Rotation and the orbital plane
You are suggesting the scenario that the ecliptic plane has tilted and also Earth's axis tilted to the same amount in the opposite direction, keeping the axis pointed to Polaris?? That is the only way I can see your point. Yes, that would be theoretically possible, but I don't think it is "bad science" to ignore it as a real possibility.
/message562626/pg1 Quoting: Menow 453087
I am saying that you cannot infer from the location of Polaris in the night sky relative to your latitude that the angle the axis of rotation of the earth makes with the ecliptic has not changed. What you can infer is that the direction of the axis of rotation relative to Polaris has not changed, which is quite different.
Point a pencil due east and orbit it round a ball horizontally it makes an angle of 0 degrees relative to the plane of the orbit round the ball. Now keep it pointing due east and rotate it vertically around the ball it - now makes an angle of 90 degrees relative to the plane of its orbit round the ball. The pencil's axis is still pointing in the same direction. Do you see my point? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 318980
6/17/2008 11:07 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
4. Do you agree that if you draw a line between the top of the stick and the end of its shadow the line will make an angle of about 10 degrees with the vertical stick at noon on solstice?
~>Yes! Now you've got it!<~ Quoting: himself 453341
It was your phrase: 'should touch the ground 10 and one half degrees north of a vertical stick' that threw me, by which I guess you meant point 4 above - the way you wrote it, it sounded like you were saying that the shadow would be at 10.5 degrees North with respect to the local horizon (i.e. at an Azimuth of 10.5 degrees).
Apologies for the misinterpretation of what you were saying, it appears we are in agreement as to what the Sun should be doing at Noon on the Solstice and I would urge all who are interested to perform this simple experiment for themselves at noon on the 21st June:
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 318980
6/17/2008 11:10 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
Oh and BTW for those with h-alpha scope there is a rather fine loop prominence on the Sun right now |
| Menow
User ID: 453087
6/17/2008 11:24 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
The relatively fixed point of Polaris in Northern skies indicates that the axis the earth is rotating around has remained constant and is pointing in the same direction(ish), it DOES NOT indicate that the inclination of this axis to the Ecliptic has remained constant.
Of course it does. The Ecliptic is a flat plane. Polaris is a point above that plane. Earth's axis is a line piercing that plane and intersecting (nearly) the point that is Polaris. You can't tilt the Earth relative to the Ecliptic plane without that axis line then missing Polaris. That would put it in a new place in the sky and it would then circle the new pole spot with all the other stars.
It IS conceivable that the Earth’s axis of rotation has remained pointing in the same direction – roughly at Polaris, but its orbital path around the Sun has changed, altering the angle between the axis of Rotation and the orbital plane
You are suggesting the scenario that the ecliptic plane has tilted and also Earth's axis tilted to the same amount in the opposite direction, keeping the axis pointed to Polaris?? That is the only way I can see your point. Yes, that would be theoretically possible, but I don't think it is "bad science" to ignore it as a real possibility.
/message562626/pg1
I am saying that you cannot infer from the location of Polaris in the night sky relative to your latitude Quoting: Anonymous Coward 318980
Relative to lattitude is not important. It is the fact that Polaris remains at the same spot in the sky, as it should.
that the angle the axis of rotation of the earth makes with the ecliptic has not changed. What you can infer is that the direction of the axis of rotation relative to Polaris has not changed, which is quite different.
Point a pencil due east and orbit it round a ball horizontally it makes an angle of 0 degrees relative to the plane of the orbit round the ball. Now keep it pointing due east and rotate it vertically around the ball it - now makes an angle of 90 degrees relative to the plane of its orbit round the ball. The pencil's axis is still pointing in the same direction. Do you see my point? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 318980
That is exactly what I said. You are changing the ecliptic plane and altering the axis in relation to that plane in exactly the same amount, but in the opposit direction. That means the axis remains pointing at the same spot in the sky. What is your point? You are suggesting a different, even more complex scenario than these "wobble" people. They are now saying that the "wobble" is TEMPORARY, which renders your scenario even more impossible. Why are you complicating this discussion? IF that is your goal, why not suggest that the laws of physics have all been suspended and that all the motions we see are now due to everything in the universe rotating around the Earth in perfect coordination so that everything appears exactly as it did before? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 318980
6/17/2008 11:37 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
Relative to lattitude is not important. It is the fact that Polaris remains at the same spot in the sky, as it should. Quoting: Menow 453087
That the northern Sky appears to rate around Polaris tells us that the axis of the Earths rotation remains pointing at Polaris - that Polaris remains at the same height above the horizon for any particular Northern latitude tells us that the location of the intersection between the axis of rotation and the surface of the Earth hasn't changed. Both are important.
What is your point? Quoting: Menow 453087
My point is that science progresses by making valid inferences from observations, not invalid ones, and that observing the location of Polaris does not tell you the relationship between the orbital plane of the Earth and its axis of rotation as you seemed to be claiming.
I do not for a moment think that the angle between the axis of rotation and the ecliptic has changed, but I am not basing this on Polaris, but on the rising and setting times and location of the Sun which are exactly as they should be. |
| Menow
User ID: 453087
6/17/2008 11:47 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
Relative to lattitude is not important. It is the fact that Polaris remains at the same spot in the sky, as it should.
That the northern Sky appears to rate around Polaris tells us that the axis of the Earths rotation remains pointing at Polaris - that Polaris remains at the same height above the horizon for any particular Northern latitude tells us that the location of the intersection between the axis of rotation and the surface of the Earth hasn't changed. Both are important.
What is your point?
My point is that science progresses by making valid inferences from observations, not invalid ones, and that observing the location of Polaris does not tell you the relationship between the orbital plane of the Earth and its axis of rotation as you seemed to be claiming. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 318980
Technically, no. You are correct.
I do not for a moment think that the angle between the axis of rotation and the ecliptic has changed, but I am not basing this on Polaris, but on the rising and setting times and location of the Sun which are exactly as they should be. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 318980
Science progresses for people who think Earth might be abnormally wobbling by making the simplest possible observations. They don't need any rising or setting times or locations(the charts for which they claim may have been altered) to see that Earth is not wobbling. Sighting Polaris to be consistently in the same spot in the sky shows the truth to an acceptable degree, baring supremely unlikely circumstances. |
| Menow
User ID: 453087
6/17/2008 11:52 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
Relative to lattitude is not important. It is the fact that Polaris remains at the same spot in the sky, as it should.
That the northern Sky appears to rate around Polaris tells us that the axis of the Earths rotation remains pointing at Polaris - that Polaris remains at the same height above the horizon for any particular Northern latitude tells us that the location of the intersection between the axis of rotation and the surface of the Earth hasn't changed. Both are important.
What is your point?
My point is that science progresses by making valid inferences from observations, not invalid ones, and that observing the location of Polaris does not tell you the relationship between the orbital plane of the Earth and its axis of rotation as you seemed to be claiming.
I do not for a moment think that the angle between the axis of rotation and the ecliptic has changed, but I am not basing this on Polaris, but on the rising and setting times and location of the Sun which are exactly as they should be. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 318980
PS: I'm sure there are some other imaginative scenarios we could contrive to explain the motions you feel are foolproof indicators. |
| himself
User ID: 453479
6/17/2008 11:55 AM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
The old guy who noticed a wobble in 1986 and commented on it to me, (from his point of view) also noticed the sun "back in it's place" the next year.
And you actually think that between the two choices: he was mistaken or that Earth was actually "wobbling", that it is more likely that it was wobbling? Quoting: Menow 453087
-Since professional astronomers etc. believe there are wobbles, both long term and short term, wobbles which may cancel each other out as in 06' or add together to produce a temporary noticeable change. Just like ocean waves can come together to produce a freak wave of unusual height.
-Since they would just shrug off a temporary wobble because that's all it is is a wobble, even when several add up to a larger temporary wobble, they know th ecause and expect it to return to normal as it does.
-Since he he had sat in that same chair on the same porch for over a dozen years
-Since the next year I saw the sunrise directly over the peak he had pointed out the year before from his porch
Yeah I believed him.
And why would I remember the only time I'd ever seen the sun a few degrees too far north?
Same reason I remember the day JFK got assassinated.
Totally unique event.
btw only professional astronomer I ever spoke at length with, an old fellow named Clyde Tombaugh, then visiting Griffith Park Observatory, told me to think often of Shakespeare's verse:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
He seemed to think finding what your are looking for is a result of perception as much as of observation. |
| Menow
User ID: 453087
6/17/2008 12:13 PM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
The old guy who noticed a wobble in 1986 and commented on it to me, (from his point of view) also noticed the sun "back in it's place" the next year.
And you actually think that between the two choices: he was mistaken or that Earth was actually "wobbling", that it is more likely that it was wobbling?
-Since professional astronomers etc. believe there are wobbles, both long term and short term, wobbles which may cancel each other out as in 06' or add together to produce a temporary noticeable change. Quoting: himself 453479
Noticeable to whom, some guy sitting on his porch? No, clearly not.
Just like ocean waves can come together to produce a freak wave of unusual height. Quoting: himself 453479
Why don't you add all those subtle wobbles together and see what the max amount could be?
-Since they would just shrug off a temporary wobble because that's all it is is a wobble, even when several add up to a larger temporary wobble, they know th ecause and expect it to return to normal as it does. Quoting: himself 453479
Yes, but what does this have to do with some guy thinking that the Sun is rising/setting in a noticeably different spot on the horizon?
-Since he he had sat in that same chair on the same porch for over a dozen years Quoting: himself 453479
Yes, and the Sun moves across the horizon every single day. The idea that he can remember the rising/setting location for specific days is ludicrous.
-Since the next year I saw the sunrise directly over the peak he had pointed out the year before from his porch Quoting: himself 453479
On what date?
Yeah I believed him.
And why would I remember the only time I'd ever seen the sun a few degrees too far north?
Same reason I remember the day JFK got assassinated.
Totally unique event. Quoting: himself 453479
But you are saying that it went "back to normal", so you have no way of confirming any of this.
btw only professional astronomer I ever spoke at length with, an old fellow named Clyde Tombaugh, then visiting Griffith Park Observatory, told me to think often of Shakespeare's verse:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Quoting: himself 453479
Which means that he was patronizing you.
He seemed to think finding what your are looking for is a result of perception as much as of observation. Quoting: himself 453479
Of course. You and your friend were mistaken. I see that you refuse to think about the actual likelihood that your friend was right, and that all astronomers had missed it. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 453383
6/17/2008 12:40 PM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
great job menow, but its a waste of time (you know this).
some of the most simple laws of physics rule out their hypothesis before they even complete their sentances. (that is to name one; objects in motion remain in motion unless an outside force is excerted on them). Menow has explained many reasons why its impossible.
however you are dealing with people whos attitude is, "well then everything we know is wrong" or "anything is possible if you believe enough".
the arrogance that they think they have found something that means the entirity of human knowledge is wrong is arrogant and delusional to the extreme.
They do not wish to learn, they deserve no response except the occcaional brutal mockery.
so
fuck all you retards |
| Menow
User ID: 453087
6/17/2008 12:49 PM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
Yep. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9251
6/17/2008 1:11 PM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
they deserve no response except the occcaional brutal mockery. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 453383
I prefer gales of derisive laughter.
Preferably in their face. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 447727
6/17/2008 1:27 PM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
Last week I got out my compass because I just couldn't believe the angle of the sun at sunset. I live about 40 miles north of Denver and of course here everyone knows the mountains are to the west -- and that's where we're used to seeing the sun set. But it was way far north. My compass said it was setting due north. I knew it was wrong because it was shining right into my office window. Usually at sunset it doesn't do that. I also noticed that the sun is bright white and very strong, it seemed much more brilliant than usual. When I tried to talk to other people about it, I get that "you must be crazy" thing.
I have been following along with Zetatalk for a couple of years now. I am pretty convinced that that is disinfo, however, I have come to believe that some of the info is accurate and it's all really a coverup for something -- it's being done to confuse us about what's really going on, I think. Anyway, I'm convinced that weird stuff is happening with the sun, solar system, etc., but it is very hard to find out the truth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 452731
You do not follow ZT if you say its disinfo, that only means your an disinformant! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 447727
6/17/2008 1:44 PM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
ZetaTalk: Certainty
Note: written during the Dec 7, 2002 Live ZetaTalk IRC Session.
Many who are well aware that our predictions on the weather changes, and how they would affect crops, are utterly true, still point to a grocery store with food stocks and claim them all false. The weather affect on crops clicked in during the year predicted, 2000, and were reported in the media, then hushed, and only now leaking out as to the extent of this as the establishment is busy with their own worries. Did we predict that all humans everywhere would be starving, not a crumb to eat? Hardly, but this is the criteria placed on those who cling to denial. As long as a cracker is available to be eaten, somewhere on Earth, our predictions is false. Likewise, our prediction that quakes would increase in both Richter and frequency, in a linear manner, has been proven true only recently, as the quake increase has been large enough to come to notice. We also predicted that under reporting would occur, and quakes in remote places simply not reported, which has also come to light very recently. As long as the establishment dropped quakes from the database, or under reported, or gave overview statistics not supported by the actual quakes, we were accused of having given false predictions by those desperate to deny.
And in like manner, even though we have reported that this inbound planet will approach during the last months, that quake increases will continue to be linear, not exponential, and tides higher than normal, not flooding inland in towering waves, the desperate to deny want certainty and drama. The effects of the pole shift are magnetic, and occur during passage. Prior to the passage, the effect of the inbound planet is like one bug tugging in a spider web, to another bug caught elsewhere in the web. There is reaction, even if the two bugs are remote, and if the one bug were to be able to crawl about, closer to the trapped bug, the vibrations and effect on the trapped bug would be felt more strongly. But nonetheless, we are talking, in the bug/web analogy, about twitching in the web, vibrations, unless and until the traveling bug arrives at the trapped bug. Then the drama begins! Flailing legs! Buzzing wings! Both bugs injuring each other in their frantic interaction, perhaps.
Thus, it is at the moment of passage that the Earth most reacts, and prior to this, it is twitching, so to speak. The earthquake plates locked down, as the Earth compressed, due to a mechanism mankind does not understand. This was demonstrated in the increase in deep quake, in prior decades. Once the plates were locked down, surface quakes ricochet to other surface plates, the domino effect that manifested in 1999, per our predictions. Now the increase in quakes is manifesting to public notice. What does all this indicate about the Earth's reaction to the inbound planet? The core is responsible for this, as the changes in patterns in the swirling core are manifested in increased volcano activity, and increased quakes as the plates, as we have recently described, are showing the shift pattern now, not just a domino effect. The stress on the plates during the shift will be such that the Pacific will shorten, the Atlantic widen, and earth changes on the surface are now showing this in stretched earth along the Atlantic, quake reverberations along the Pacific. How will this change, in the next months?
More, and stronger, such that cities will become problematic to live in, and obsessed with cleaning up the last quake damage and horrifically worried about the next. The increased core swirling, by a core most responsive to the approach of a magnetic giant into the neighborhood, also is heating the earth's plates, causing melting poles, melting glaciers, and rising seas. This is occurring, but under reported at present, but like the under reported quakes will burst into the public eye when cities along coastlines are inundated by several feet of water, their streets awash. How will this change in the months going into the shift? Higher tides, more inundation, and more frantic city managers. Until the planet hoves into view, is approaching so rapidly that the earth is slowing by minutes and then hours a day, and then stops in rotation, there will not be any more than linear increases in what we have described.
Those who want a horn to blow, certainty, and are demanding this, are simply not processing information. They are children, wanting black and white and unable to be comfortable when having to think for themselves. They are lost, during the shift, in any case, and will be found wandering around, lost, afterwards, demanding of some stranger that certainly be brought into their lives. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 318980
6/17/2008 1:58 PM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
PS: I'm sure there are some other imaginative scenarios we could contrive to explain the motions you feel are foolproof indicators. Quoting: Menow 453087
I wait with baited breath.... |
| Menow
User ID: 453087
6/17/2008 2:03 PM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
You do not follow ZT if you say its disinfo, that only means your an disinformant! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 447727
Then you should be happy to discuss the astronomical claims found in zetatalk. Let's start with the "Dark Twin" being invisible now, even to telescopes.
Go ahead. You have the floor. |
| Menow
User ID: 453087
6/17/2008 2:10 PM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
PS: I'm sure there are some other imaginative scenarios we could contrive to explain the motions you feel are foolproof indicators.
I wait with baited breath.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 318980
You're kidding,right? OK, let's just play the most ridiculous card in the deck. Why waste time? Here goes:
Benevolent aliens are moving things around in the sky so that they appear normal. Barring that, they introduce "screen memories" to keep individuals from seeing and remembering what is actually in front of them. You have been subjected to this procedure. K? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 318980
6/17/2008 2:25 PM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
PS: I'm sure there are some other imaginative scenarios we could contrive to explain the motions you feel are foolproof indicators.
I wait with baited breath....
You're kidding, right? OK, let's just play the most ridiculous card in the deck. Why waste time? Here goes:
Benevolent aliens are moving things around in the sky so that they appear normal. Barring that, they introduce "screen memories" to keep individuals from seeing and remembering what is actually in front of them. You have been subjected to this procedure. K? Quoting: Menow 453087
Oh that is disappointing, I thought you were going to come up with testable hypothesis that would explain how the inclination of the axis of rotation of the earth to the ecliptic could change yet the Sun rise/set times and locations remain exactly how they should be thus showing that these were not good indicators of axial tilt. Oh well... |
| The Lone Ranger 
Debunking Zetatalk for the sake of the people
User ID: 443967
6/17/2008 2:39 PM
 | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
You're kidding,right? OK, let's just play the most ridiculous card in the deck. Why waste time? Here goes:
Benevolent aliens are moving things around in the sky so that they appear normal. Barring that, they introduce "screen memories" to keep individuals from seeing and remembering what is actually in front of them. You have been subjected to this procedure. K? Quoting: Menow 453087
 These Bunker FOOLS are the MOST gullible of all glpers.......such a sad state of affairs.......for them Bozos.
:Our_Sun:
Life Is But A Dream!!
Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all."
------------------------------------
"ZetaTalk is all crap. Nancy has spent over ten years writing and compiling a huge web site full of total bullshit. It's a work of true insanity, but useful for nothing other than students of manic disorders." Anonymous Coward. User ID: 597174. 7/11/2009 8:22 PM
--------------------------------
I concede that Nancy and ZetaTalk are not the most "trustworthy" of "sources" because her reputation, credentials and track record leave a LOT to be desired. Melfy 9/21/09 |
| pssst…
User ID: 418932
6/17/2008 2:39 PM | | Re: I've been through the desert on a thread with no name | Quote |
I wait with baited breath.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 318980
(it's 'bated' breath, as in holding one's breath (a)bate ) |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 | |
|
