On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 5:36:15 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
> Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.

And now I hear that Norwegian observers are going to also join in
the misery.

John Savard

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 5:36:15?PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>> Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.
>
>And now I hear that Norwegian observers are going to also join in
>the misery.
>
>John Savard

With climate change, Norway will soon be burning as well.

Nobody is going to trust experimental theorists with the Earth science of climate when the same theorists can't handle the daily rise and fall in temperatures as the planet turns once giving rise to a sunrise/noon/sunset every 24 hours and a thousand rotations in a thousand 24 hour days.

" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard

Planetary climate relies on solar system researchers with a full understanding of the daily and annual cycles and what motions are behind them. From over 30 years of experience in this newsgroup, or what is left of it, no such researchers of integrity and stature exist.

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 8:44:57 AM UTC+1, RichA wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 June 2023 at 15:51:35 UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> > Nobody is going to trust experimental theorists with the Earth science of climate when the same theorists can't handle the daily rise and fall in temperatures as the planet turns once giving rise to a sunrise/noon/sunset every 24 hours and a thousand rotations in a thousand 24 hour days.
> >
> > " It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard
> >
> > Planetary climate relies on solar system researchers with a full understanding of the daily and annual cycles and what motions are behind them. From over 30 years of experience in this newsgroup, or what is left of it, no such researchers of integrity and stature exist.
> Begin worrying when these psychotics get plans into their heads like seeding the atmosphere with things like sulfur particles. Screen out sunlight? Allowing acidic conversion of the sulfur to do what those same kooks said it was doing in the 1970's, warming about acid rain. If they want to squander the public's money building billion $ machines to suck CO2 out of the air, put them in jail.

That would be an unnecessary digression in light of what is in front of observers.

There are no genuine solar system researchers around and those who call themselves astronomers are just theorists promoting the largest, smallest, most distant, most dense and all the other superlatives accompanied by scientists are astonished, baffled, puzzled or all the other terms designed to keep them in employment. They have no interest in planetary climate, no interest in the planet and its motions and indeed their greatest enemy is keeping planetary facts as distant from society as possible.

All empirical or clockwork solar system modelling is built on a bluff, in this case, RA/Dec modelling.

It prevents people from understanding what actually causes the seasons so these people can have their scientific method and the notion that conditions in a common greenhouse scale up to the Earth's atmosphere-

"Rule (of reasoning) III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

There are no rules of reasoning unless people are determined to be constituents of a dangerous subculture which destroyed astronomy and Earth sciences.. These people are uncaring or psychotics in your language for how else can they detach themselves from the day/night cycle every 24 hours and the rotation behind it.

They are enemies of humanity and always were.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:51:35 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> Nobody is going to trust experimental theorists with the Earth science of climate when
> the same theorists can't handle the daily rise and fall in temperatures as the planet
> turns once giving rise to a sunrise/noon/sunset every 24 hours and a thousand
> rotations in a thousand 24 hour days.

Nobody? *You* may not trust these "experimental theorists", but wandering over the
newsgroups, neither here, nor in rec.arts.sf.written, or even in a couple of other ones,
you have not yet found any kindred spirit.

The experimental theorists certainly can handle the daily rise and fall in temperature.
Any location on the Earth is brought to face the Sun once every 24 hours - by what is,
in their eyes, the _combination_ of the Earth's rotation and the Earth's orbital motion
around the Sun. Since the Earth's orbital motion moves the Earth, so that the Sun is
not in the same direction from the Earth after 24 hours have passed, *of course*
the Earth has to make slightly more than one rotation in order to bring the same locations
to face the Sun again.

What could possibly be the *problem* with that?

> " It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal
> time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the
> year" NASA /Harvard

On the other hand,
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a
good fortune must be in want of a wife." - Jane Austen

Of course, she was being facetious.

John Savard

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 01:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:51:35 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> > Nobody is going to trust experimental theorists with the Earth
> > science of climate when the same theorists can't handle the daily
> > rise and fall in temperatures as the planet turns once giving rise
> > to a sunrise/noon/sunset every 24 hours and a thousand rotations in
> > a thousand 24 hour days.
>
> Nobody? *You* may not trust these "experimental theorists", but
> wandering over the newsgroups, neither here, nor in
> rec.arts.sf.written, or even in a couple of other ones, you have not
> yet found any kindred spirit.
>
> The experimental theorists certainly can handle the daily rise and
> fall in temperature. Any location on the Earth is brought to face the
> Sun once every 24 hours - by what is, in their eyes, the
> _combination_ of the Earth's rotation and the Earth's orbital motion
> around the Sun. Since the Earth's orbital motion moves the Earth, so
> that the Sun is not in the same direction from the Earth after 24
> hours have passed, *of course* the Earth has to make slightly more
> than one rotation in order to bring the same locations to face the
> Sun again.
>
> What could possibly be the *problem* with that?
>
> > " It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference
> > between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis
> > once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA
> > /Harvard
>
> On the other hand,
> "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in
> possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." - Jane Austen
>
> Of course, she was being facetious.

Simp comment of the week. Ask Nikola Tesla his opinion on the subject.

>
> John Savard

The earth is flat and stationary. It is not spinning at hypersonic
speed. The celestial lights are actually moving. We are not moving like
a spinning top beneath them. They are not balls of big bang black hole
burning fart gas trillions of miles away. They are plasma lights in the
earth's magnetic field, less than 5000 miles away. The motions of the
planets follow the motions of a winding magnetic toroid. That is why
they have retrograde motion. They are illuminating in a different
rotational field circuit than the other stars. The same kind of
magnetic vortex that creates hurricanes and tornadoes is what creates
the stars. The vortexes above in the sky are constant, so the stars
remain precisely the same in their motions. But none of them remain
precisely the same in their luminescence.

The so-called 'spin' of the earth is propaganda spin. If the earth were
actually spinning over 1000 mph at the equator, its surface would
disintegrate. The entire crust, they say, is broken rock and mud and
clay and sand, and beneath that is magma hundreds or thousands of miles
thick. The surface of the earth would resemble a boiling caldera if the
earth were actually spinning. No iron flywheel could handle such
rotational force without disintegrating, yet you are expected to
believe that a ball of molten lava with a mud crust holds it together
because of mystical 'grabbity.' Credulity is dangerous!

A highly-pressurized atmosphere does not adhere to the surface of a
ball next to a infinite vacuum. You cannot have gas pressure without a
container. If outer space is a vacuum then earth cannot have an
atmosphere.

The earth has a container about 4-5000 miles above our heads which
holds the atmosphere in. You can occasionally see this barrier during
sunrises and sunsets, when the bright sun casts a ring shadow on it.
Also you can occasionally see rainbows on this barrier from the
sunlight reflecting off the barrier. Normally you can't see the barrier
because hundreds of miles of atmosphere tends to be quite opaque and
block light that might reflect off of it.

The military operation 'fishbowl' was a series of attempts to breach
the firmament that encloses the earth.

The military operation 'highjump' was a series of attempts to reach the
firmament overhead.

Satellites, so-called, are actually just high-altitude helium balloons
with radio equipment suspended from them. They are kept in position by
raising and lower the elevation to ride the air currents around the
designated position.

Gravity does not exist. Molecules and atoms do not exercise attractive
force against other molecules and atoms at a distance. The downward
force that pulls objects to the ground is due to the electrostatic
shear waves in the earth's magnetic field. As the ions move from the
ionosphere down to the ground, diamagnetic and paramagnetic shear waves
are formed at many layers and move downward. These waves push against
the molecules of matter, forcing them toward the ground plane. Denser
objects receive more direct contact with the shear waves. Objects are
not pulled to the earth. They are pushed by the magnetic field. Thus we
have Columb's law, of magnetic attraction and acceleration. The speed of
acceleration of Columb's law is identical to the theory of gravity,
because it is magnetism, and not gravity, that pushes (not pulls)
objects downward toward the center of the ground plane of earth.

--

You have been phlatt smacked. Urf iz phlatt.

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.sf.written/c/7yy2KGSy4ng

So now everyone knows that at the North Pole, the Sun tracks and rises in the opposite direction to the South Pole. It would seem certain that the Sun tracks in one direction due to daily rotation but researchers should know better for the same reason Southern hemisphere people do not see the Moon in the same way as their Northern counterparts.

Every now and again, science facts are far more enjoyable and satisfying than the science fiction and science fantasy these people traffic in. Wish these nuisances would stay over there in the fantasy newsgroups where they belong but this is an unmoderated forum so take the good with the vapid.