Watching the news I have been trying to
decide what to write a post about. So many things of importance
have happened; the Orion test launch, the horrible killings of so
many at a school in Pakistan, the climate accord that was just
reached, the inching forward of normalizing relations between the
United States and Cuba. But I felt that maybe it was time to take a
break from the realities and sadness of these times and reflect a
little on the season.
As we watch the hoards of Christmas
shoppers scrambling for deals on Black Friday it appears we have
forgotten what this season is about. So I wanted to share with you
a couple of my favorite stories. The first is a story
written by O. Henry, which was adapted into a short Christmas story
for television. My apologies for the commercial in the middle.
The second story revolves around a
letter written by a little girl so long ago.
And last but not least one of my
favorite songs. You're right Pete, these people are good. :)
It is a time to celebrate the
goodness of humanity and if only for an instant to forget some
of the strife in the world. I wish everyone a wonderful and magical holiday
season.
204 comments:
1 – 200 of 204 Newer› Newest»first :~p
Doesn't count if ya didn't watch the half hour video.
Hey, I tried to find one without commercials! :)
Hey, Z. Nice to "see" you. :)
I'm going to swerve a little for the moment and mention the odd events instigated by North Korea(or so says the FBI anyway). North Korea of course denies everything. Hmmm...really? Why on earth would anyone hack a movie studio? Because of a MOVIE? Seriously?
Then the threats continued against any movie theater who dared show it. So what do the movie theaters do? They cancel the movie. Yes, that's right, the cancellation wasn't done by Sony. The theaters basically said they didn't want the movie.
Do we really want to live our lives according to threats made by a Korean dictator?
The Kim Jong-Un death scene seems to be getting taken down off YouTube as fast as it's put up, but here's a link that might be more persistent. I wouldn't normally be interested in such a movie but the hacks and threats make me want to see it. I didn't see Team America (even though I'm So Ronery is the ringtone on my phone ... in fact I can't watch that clip without thinking someone's calling ;-)
Lynnette, I thought you were developing your obsession with evangelical singers when I watched The Gift of the Magi ;-)
That first song was instantly recognisable as Amy Grant ... didn't realise it was an ad for Target, or that she had done promotions for them back in the nineties. My favourite song of hers is "If These Walls Could Speak". (Don't know why Jimmy Webb allowed Glen Campbell to slaughter so many of his songs -- this is a much more faithful arrangement).
Oops ... mistyped the link html ... If These Walls Could Speak.
Well, our solstice was a continuation of all the clement autumn and winter weather. Blue skies and crisp sunshine all day until sundown, then it hazed over and warmed up, and by 10pm it was a breezy 15°C (60°F) and rising. Forget about mid-winter nights -- we've had colder summer days! Sorry Marcus ;-)
I know, Pete, normally I wouldn't be interested in that movie either. It looked kind of lame. But with all the fuss and bother North Korea made about it, it makes it more appealing. The fellow from Sony that was on Fareed Zakaria's show this morning did mention they are considering other options to allow people to view the movie. YouTube was one of them.
I know, I know, I couldn't find another version of The Gift of the Magi video when I looked. *sigh*
One of the drawbacks to YouTube videos is you are kind of stuck with the editing done by the person who uploaded them.
Amy Grant has a beautiful voice, though, so the ad in the beginning was actually nice. :)
I'd never heard the song you linked to before. Beautiful.
There's one hack for skipping the initial part of a video. Here's The Gift of the Magi with the ads and intro skipped. Notice the #t=sss suffix on the URL which skips sss seconds. Unfortunately you can't use this with embedded Youtube vids on Blogger, though you can use it in links anywhere.
Btw, is The Gift of the Magi a local production? When looking up Amy Grant's ad I noticed that Target was HQ'd in Minneapolis. I see WCCO is a Minnesota station. But what really prompted me to ask is the woman in the first scene says "any mehl tiddeh? ... how about a nice cup of tea to wahrm yer bawns". I'm no expert, but sounds suspiciously upper midwesty to me :) :) :)
... and now that I'm in snooping mode I see that the building pictured in the first scene is in Whittier, Minneapolis and, anachronistically, was built about twenty years after O. Henry wrote the story :)
Bah! They credited everything right down to who supplied the gold fob chain ... but no music credits! :(
I wanna know what that brilliant incidental music is from 5:15 to 5:45 and 6:10 to 6:45. I snipped it and uploaded to some music recognition sites, but no dice :(
Dave Moore was a local celebrity newsman. As far as I know it was a local production. Maybe the WCCO website has info on the production. You may be able to find something in its archives regarding the music.
Rebels in northern Syria say U.S. has stopped paying them
Inside ISIL
“We are standing up a train and assist program” for Syrian fighters, he added, referring to the $500 million program before Congress this week.
Er...by cutting off funding and arms?
*sigh*
Sounds like movie theaters have changed their minds and are going to be showing "The Interview" after all. Although maybe not on Christmas. It might be one of the worst blockbusters ever made. I heard it isn't very good. Perhaps the hackers have done what the producers couldn't. lol!
Merry Christmas to y'all.
Thank you, Marcus. Merry Christmas to you too! :)
Instead of responding to the Merry Christmas's I'm gonna be bold and ask ... why? Marcus -- you presumably don't have any reason to believe Christmas should be any merrier than any other time. Lynnette, likewise? Apart from time off work, extra busy shops, and unusual TV programming ... what's so merry about it?
(I am playing devil's advocate of course ;-)
Pete: "Apart from time off work, extra busy shops, and unusual TV programming ... what's so merry about it?"
Time spent with family and cozy traditions - would be my best answer. We celebrated yesterday evening and it was a very merry time.
Marcus is right, Pete. It's about people. It's about connecting with others and letting them know we are thinking of them, either through gifts given or messages sent. That's why the saying goes that it's not the gift but the thought that counts.
And as long as there are caring people in our lives, then a merry time it will be. :)
Ahhh, back to the daily grind. Working on Fridays again(half day at least). Our office seems to be the only one! Oh well, it is what it is.
Snowed just enough to make the roads slick again.
And I see that "The Interview" has raked in $1 million so far. Don't know if that's better than expected or not. Anecdotal evidence is that there are people going who would not normally have done so.
I'd forgotten how stingy your holidays were! December 26th is a public holiday here. Nothing open except the pubs. In the UK there are also retailers doing Boxing Day sales. That's the traditional frenzied shopping day akin to your Black Friday.
Now that everyone's adopted Black Friday it's another unseemly stampede and I see from the news sites that we are not to be disappointed -- mothers using pushchairs as battering rams and so on. It seems the Season of Good Will loses its "merriness" when it comes to shopping.
I was glad to see you and Marcus have a fairly traditional view of the season, even if it is minus the "heaven coming to earth" bit. 'Cos the devil himself seems to have come to the shopping malls! ;-/
Lol! Well, it does seem like everyone else took today off. But it's the end of the year and I had some stuff to get done. We will have off a part day next week for New Year's Eve and of course New Years Day. But I have heard that the United States is a country with some of the least number of days off. I believe it.
I stopped at a couple of stores after work and they were busy. I'm doing lunch and a play tomorrow, so had to rush around getting all my errands done today.
If I had my wish I wouldn't have left the house since Christmas Eve. :)
Btw, were you going to post the solution to your puzzle from the last post in a written version? As opposed to the math solution, that is. :)
Pete: " 'Cos the devil himself seems to have come to the shopping malls!"
For me shopping is the least important thing about Christmas. I buy gifts but only for the kids in my extended family, us adults have agreed to not buy gifts for eachother. After the kids gifts are bought I have no desire whatsoever to run around in crowded stores looking for bargains.
I'd much rather open and heat a bottle of glögg and lie in my sofa looking at old movies and just relax.
I'd much rather open and heat a bottle of glögg and lie in my sofa looking at old movies and just relax.
Sounds like the perfect Christmas to me!
Actually, I'm thinking that the lunch and play I went to today was the highlight of my Christmas. Both were very good. I didn't even mind getting lost on the way. :) I was driving, so getting lost was almost a given. lol!
My Christmas is getting decidedly imperfect. Have spent the last 24 hours shivering and shaking and -- very uncharacteristically for me -- have taken to my bed with as much paracetomol as I can take without making my liver look like the pâté starter at a Christmas lunch.
Just what I needed to get myself back to the studies I've been neglecting! I find electromagnetism makes so much more sense when you're delirious ;-)
Oh yeah, I'd forgotten the sunrise puzzle. Stopped being fun very quickly for reasons you might be able to guess.
The answer is: refraction. Lee mentioned it and for some reason discounted it early on, maybe 'cos he tied himself in knots with his failure to understand the totally unrelated and (in this context) irrelevant concept of parallax.
Refraction is most in evidence close to the horizon, as explained here. If the sun is rising straight up from the horizon, like at the equinocteal sunrise at the equator, then the effect is just to make it rise earlier. But if it rises at an angle with the horizon like this example of the winter solstice sunrise in Dublin, it is also shifted around to the north because the azimuth as well as the altitude is affected.
The angle made with the horizon is constant for a given latitude all year round, and my formula takes the latitude as a parameter, so my formula gives the azimuthal shift for any day of the year, anywhere on earth.
"5 tan(θ)/6"
That's nine characters, not eight, and not counting the multiplication sign you omitted to get it down to nine, and it came in two and a half days late. And that ain't it.
"refraction. Lee mentioned it and for some reason discounted it early on..."
Because that's not it either.
Refraction bends the light down on sunrise and sunset; causing the sun to appear to rise and set earlier and later, respectively; not so much sideways, which would change where (north/south) it appears on the horizon.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"The angle made with the horizon is constant for a given latitude all year round…"
You do not ad-lib well. This time I did do a quick google, but it was fairly quick and easy as I already knew what to google.
"In general however, the azimuth angle varies with the latitude and time of year…"
PVEducation--Azimuth angle
(emphasis added)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The angle, with respect to north/south on the horizon, is not much affected by refraction. Here's a quick test for our friends to consider (I'm assuming neither of them has ever fished with a bow or a spear).
1. Get a clear, fairly straight-sided glass and fill it mostly to the top with water.
2. Stick a pencil in at an angle slanted across your field of view (i.e. pencil slopes left/right or right/left depending on which hand you use).
3. Notice that the refraction bends the pencil down. (The pencil will also appear to get larger, but that's a function of the curved glass acting as a magnifier, not by the air/water refraction difference.)
4. Now stick the pencil in at a 90° angle to before (slanted straight to you or away from you, but not left-to-right or right-to-left) Best to put it on a counter top for this one.
5. Notice that the pencil is not subject to having it's position changed, side-to-side, by the refraction of the water (although, still magnified by the curve of the glass).
Refraction bends the light down, not sideways; and it's got squat to do with any ‘azimuth’ swings. And you're still fulla shit, tryin’ to make folks think you're somewhat less than clueless by flooding them with a lot of jargon-babble.
(In case anybody else is on top of this, highly unlikely I guess, he's now trying to work the ‘azimuth’ thing in with refraction, but I'm still a few steps ahead of him here.)
"That's nine characters, not eight, and not counting the multiplication sign you omitted to get it down to nine, and it came in two and a half days late. And that ain't it."
Reckoned you'd have a whinge about that alright. Blogger comments don't allow me put up the typeset version where it is perfectly valid to omit multiplication signs, the division line ain't a "character", and indeed I can get it down to six if I feel like it.
As for the rest, your free education opportunity ended on the last thread. Best I can do in this Season of Good Will is ignore y'all. Y'all mighta waited to see if anyone else expressed confusion before accusin' me of jargon-babble. (Quick check ... nope, yore the only one). Of course, for anyone else I'd be happy to elaborate. For you ... not so much.
"…and indeed I can get it down to six if I feel like it."
Six also ain't eight and you knew you had to post it here when you made the spurious claim. Point being you felt you had to come up with something, so you came up with that and tried to pretend it fit (doesn't but it's the closest thing you could get I guess).
"For you ... not so much."
I laughed you off at that equation when you posted it. Figured everybody else had the good sense to do the same. From the import of Lynnette's post, it seems I may have overestimated her on that one, but it's not exactly her bailiwick. Babble on if ya want--or don't, I don't care.
(You did get the ‘azimuth’ thing entirely wrong here, so I'd suggest further babble will likley not help you.)
[Lee]: "I laughed you off at that equation when you posted it."
Course you did. You already spent three hours and five posts tryin' to hone yer Jesuitical response. Fact is, you didn't come within an ass's roar of understandin' it. I admit I did intentionally omit an explanation of the particular constants in it on the basis that you don't deserve a free education.
[Me]: "The angle made with the horizon is constant for a given latitude all year round"
[Lee]: "In general however, the azimuth angle varies with the latitude and time of year…"
LOL. If I'd meant the azimuth angle I'd have said the azimuth angle. And you have the cheek to accuse me of usin' jargon! I even gave you a diagram and tried to explain to y'all in pictures. I suspect you really don't wanna understand it, 'cos it's genuinely hard to believe anyone could be this thick.
Here, have a photo to go with the diagram. You still ain't gonna get it. Indeed, have another diagram of summer solstice sunrise in Dublin. Now, try as hard as yer little brain can try, to spot something that's the same about the summer and winter solstice pics. (Hint: if y'all temporarily assume I'm right rather than wrong, y'all will embarrass yerself less overall).
"I admit I did intentionally omit an explanation of the particular constants in it on
the basis that you don't deserve a free education."
I saw that. I got a laugh outta that. You don't bluff any better than your ad-lib.
Listen sonny, my sick eyes are already hurtin' enough without havin' to read any more of yer stupidity. I'll leave it to our other guests to explain it to y'all, assumin' they've got the patience for ya.
"You already spent three hours and five posts tryin' to hone yer Jesuitical
response."
Nope, I finally decided to google up an authority on your foolishness about the ‘azimuth’ staying the same year round, just 'cause it'd have a salutory effect on Lynnette and Marcus if I didn't just tell 'em you were you were fulla shit. Gave me a chance to consolidate the earlier posts into one, so, I took the opportunity.
I think you misunderstand. Lynnette actually believed you might have something. She might ask how that works.
Unfortunately for yer pigheaded iggerant self, I never said anything about the ‘azimuth’ staying the same year round, and yer protestations thereon make y'all an easily verifiable liar as well as an eejit.
"I never said anything about the ‘azimuth’ staying the same year round…"
Then part about the ‘the angle’ really was just extraneous jargon-babble just tossed out there for jargon-babble effect.. (Seems I may have overestimated you too.)
"The angle made with the horizon is constant for a given latitude all year round…"
Petes @ Sat Dec 27, 10:24:00 pm
"Lynnette actually believed you might have something. She might ask how that works."
LOL. If I can't explain it to Lynnette's satisfaction with one picture and three sentences, I'll eat my hat. You've already got more than I reckon she needs, and yer still seven shades of clueless.
"LOL. If I can't explain it to Lynnette's satisfaction with one picture and three
sentences…"
You seem to have set yourself a challenge. Good luck with that, and with trying to tie it into that equation you gave her earlier. (I do believe she'll expect that to happen.)
And six is also not eight.
LOL. Y'all might wanna wait till you have the merest glimmer of understandin' yerself before makin' claims about what Lynnette might expect.
"And six is also not eight."
LOL. Add parentheses around the theta argument. You really are clutchin' at straws. I'm embarrassed for ya.
Ya still don't run a good bluff. Trying again didn't improve it one little bit.
Don't need (or want) parentheses if you use the 'typeset' character; you're working too hard to prove up eight kinda ex-post-facto here. Makes it kinda obvious you just went for that as a desperation play after your first plan didn't pan out in nine days.
LOL. :) :) :)
Nevertheless, I accept the earlier challenge. Lynnette, whenever you're ready, I'll condense -- from the mess that Lee has made of the thread -- one picture and three sentences that give the heart of the explanation. If you're not happy, Lee gets his money back ... or somethin'.
The numerical analysis will need one further picture, although I still intend to make ole' Lee fill in the final details on account of otherwise he'd claim he knew all along what he's singularly failed to grasp thus far.
After you spent nine days to come up with an equation that don't actually work, I'd say that's probably your best play here; pretend ya got something but only The Great and Wonderful Petes actually knows what that might be.
Seen this one too many times before though--you need a new play. The fact that this is the best ya got don't mean it's good 'nuff.
LOL again. :) :) :)
Yer lack of grasp is so total that y'all have repeatedly demonstrated that ya don't even know what the equation is tryin' to show. So when you say it "don't actually work" ... y'all will forgive me for stiflin' a laugh followed by a yawn.
"only The Great and Wonderful Petes actually knows what that might be".
Nope, it'll be the Great and Wonderful Petes, Lynnette, and basically everyone else with the exception of yoreself.
And that will have to be it for now. Ain't spendin' no more time tryin' to figure out yer major mental malfunction.
So, it ain't the equation; that don't actually work to explain anything. Ain't ‘refraction’ either, and the angle of the sunrise either is or is not the ‘azimuth’ depending on how you want to define it for your current purposes, and now you have ‘one picture and three sentences’ that likely don't have anything to do with either your equation nor 'refraction' nor maybe even the angle, which may or may not be the ‘azimuth’, depending on your definition for the day…
Ya think ya can make this new one work?
I think you've boxed yourself out again.
"Ya think ya can make this new one work?"
I haven't the slightest doubt of it. 'Cos I'll be explainin' it to Lynnette, instead of a someone with an educational equivalent age of two. I think it's gonna be quite refreshin' to not have to deal with all the drool.
Well, you can bet I will be watching (if quietly); so don't go getting the idea that you can bluff or jargon-babble your way through it.
lol!
Okay, have at it, Pete!
Interesting experiment, Lee. I tried it with a straw.
Here we go, Lynnette:
PICTURE.
See how the diamond shaped sign points at different parts of the sun as it ascends above the horizon in this series of photographs. Draw a line through all the sun images and you get a slanted line touching the horizon at the point of sunrise, and by extension dipping below the horizon before sunrise. Now, the effect of refraction is to loft that entire line higher so that what you are seeing is not the actual geometrical position of the sun -- you will agree that raising or lowering the line moves the position of sunrise slightly right or left of where it otherwise would be.
The raising and lowering from refraction is by an amount of just barely over the diameter of the sun. Thus the apparent shift in position of the sunrise due to the raising and lowering can be by only ½ the diameter of the sun. (from its mid-point to its outer edge). The diameter of the sun is just under ½ of a degree. ½ × ½ = ¼. The chart rounds down to full degrees. Shifts in the sun's apparent position due to refraction (up to ¼°) are not not enough to account for the change (being pretty much lost in the rounding error as Petes had previously noted at Thu Dec 11, 06:44:00 pm. No way this is gonna get ya the 37° variance with the readings same day at the equator.
Try again.
Lynnette, I hope from your position at the top of the class you are able to ignore that hideous cackling coming from the dunce's corner. Don't let him sidetrack you with his inanities ;-)
Post Script:
Most of the change in position of the sun in Petes’ picture is due to the fact that the sun isn't coming straight overhead at noon---it's taking off at an angle across the southern sky.
"The angle made with the horizon is constant for a given latitude all year round…"
Petes @ Sat Dec 27, 10:24:00 pm
Of course, that's not true either as we all well know the sun's angle of attack varies greatly during the course of the year.
.
LOL. Lynnette, stop up yer ears!!!
"we all well know the sun's angle of attack varies greatly during the course of the year."
Now who's inventing jargon? "Angle of attack?". The only thing we're concerned with is angle of ascent the sun makes with the horizon at sunrise -- the slanted line I referred to in the comment to Lynnette. And no, that's the same for a given latitude all year round.
Just to put paid to poor ole' Lee's notion that due to this effect "the apparent shift in position of the sunrise due to the raising and lowering can be by only ½ the diameter of the sun"...
He agrees that the sun is raised "by an amount of just barely over the diameter of the sun". Well, here we are at the equator with the sun rising straight up from the eastern horizon. I've shown the sun's true and apparent positions, which I think will be unobjectionable, and we see that the sunrise remains due east, but is just offset a little in time.
Now, we can pick a latitude so that the slant of the sun with the horizon at sunrise is arbitrarily low. Here it is for a latitude of 84.2°N. Now when we loft the sun by the same change in altitude, the shift of sunrise around the horizon is a hell of a lot more than the quarter degree (half diameter of the sun) that Lee claimed.
As for the "37° variance" that Lee's blatherin' about ... that was only ever in his head. We've always been talking about the apparent change in position of the sunrise -- as the original article was titled: The Asymmetric Sunrise (which as Lee hisself pointed out turns out to be twice the change at a given latitude). The change is zero degrees at the equator (as my picture just now shows) and increases for higher latitudes.
QED, I think, and ole' Lee is searchin' furiously for some way to talk hisself out of this one just about now.
"Now who's inventing jargon? "Angle of attack?""
You consider that ‘jargon’, as in ‘the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group’? Merriam-Websters?
You may need to get more acquinted with the English language.
Oh yessirree, I's gittin mahself "more acquinted".
"Now when we loft the sun by the same change in altitude, the shift of sunrise
around the horizon is a hell of a lot more than the quarter degree (half diameter of
the sun) that Lee claimed."
Or, maybe not. Wiki say:
"By convention, sunrise and sunset refer to times at which the Sun’s upper limb
appears on or disappears from the horizon and the standard value for the Sun’s
true altitude is −50′: −34′ for the refraction and −16′ for the Sun’s semi-diameter."
50‘ is half a degree and only ⅔ of that is from refraction.
And, in any case, the sun's apparent displacement is still defined in Common English as parallax and not as refraction. You're still arguing about the cause; keep trying to drag me back into that. I keep telling you, parallax is not a cause; doesn't cause anything--it's the Common English word for the observed effect. I said that at the beginning, I'll say to the end. Parallax is not a cause of the effect, it's the name of the effect.
Oh sweet God, he's still tryin' to rescue hisself. 50' is fifty minutes and last time I checked there were 60 minutes in a degree, so 50' is, indeed, 5/6 degree.
On the other hand, yer right I should only allow for the refractive part -- so sue me ... or replace the 5 and 6 in my equation with 7 and 12. ;-)
"… more acquinted"
We know you're getting desperate when you resort to bitchin’ ‘bout spelling errors. Petes gone back to making himself look big by howling about typos now. Been here more than once.
I stand corrected on the 5/6ths. Getting my decimals confused with my fractions (on account of I'm actually doing more important things on the computer here and ain't paying you a whole lot of attention anymore.)
"the sun's apparent displacement is still defined in Common English as parallax"
Nope. It isn't. That's still down to yer Jesuitical attempt to parse the dictionary as a replacement for knowin' jack shit about the subject. For instance if you were able to understand the Wikipedia entry on parallax you would read there that: "nearby objects have a larger parallax than more distant objects when observed from different positions, so parallax can be used to determine distances". The last time I watched Jupiter rise it was refracted by exactly the same amount as the sun, in spite of bein' four times more distant, and the same was true of Sirius in spite of bein' half a million times more distant, and of Andromeda in spite of bein' over a hundred billion times more distant. You can keep parrotin' yer mantra as often as you like. I'll just keep laughin' to myself.
Anyway, the variation between what's discovered to be observable at the equator, and what's discovered to be observable at Dublin runs up to 37° in the swing north to south, 1½° at equinox its least variation, more at other times--refraction doesn't explain why it's more at other times and so we've got a proposed explanation from Petes that's only good for two days a year--no help there to most folks for most purposes. Useless, as I said it'd likely be
"The last time I watched Jupiter rise it was refracted by exactly the same
amount as the sun, in spite of bein' four times more distant, and the same was true
of Sirius in spite of bein' half a million times more distant."
Which only goes to show that the refractive index of the atmosphere is what it is at any given time, while the parallax shift of different objects varies with the distance. (You really think you were gonna fool anybody with that piece of sleight-of-hand?)
"the variation between what's discovered to be observable at the equator, and what's discovered to be observable at Dublin runs up to 37°"
I'll happily discuss that aspect with y'all as soon as you point to a single comment of mine that indicated I was ever talkin' about that. You got yerself confused from the get go. I was talkin' about the apparent change in azimuth of sunrise for a given latitude. Tried to correct you on it every time you displayed yer obvious ignorance of the point under discussion. But you never got it, still don't. And there's only so much correction of the incorrigible I can attempt before you start makin' me look stupid too.
[Lee]: "Which only goes to show that the refractive index of the atmosphere is what it is at any given time, while the parallax shift of different objects varies with the distance."
LOLOLOL. I explained that one to ya before too. Yer gettin' confused with the declination of celestial objects with change in latitude. And no, that's no different for the Sun, Jupiter, Sirius, or Andromeda either. Y'all are plumbin' new depths of cluelessness.
And now, since Lee's gonna keep Jesuitically rabbitin' on about definitions for as long as we let him, we'll proceed to the maths bit. Lee hisself has told us the refraction effect is just over the diameter of the sun -- seven twelfths of a degree to be reasonably precise. The sunrise is defined to occur as the upper edge of the sun appears on the horizon, so the centre of the sun is a quarter degree (half its width) below the horizon plus the seven twelfths, for a total of five sixths of a degree.
So "sunrise" occurs when the true position of the sun is 5/6° below the horizon which, for anywhere north of the equator, is north of where it would occur in the absence of refraction. How much further north? It depends on that famous "slant" ... which is given by 90° minus the observer's latitude (N.B. 90° at the equator, as we expect; 45° in Minneapolis; 37° in Dublin).
The rest is a tiny bit of trigonometry, which I've shown here.
(Congrats to Lee for triggerin' me to realise the fraction should be 7/12 instead of 5/6 since the half sun diameter need not be taken into account. On the other hand, I'm sure y'all know how to look up the source of that image on imgur.com. Here, lemme do it for y'all. Y'all will notice a "stats" button that will give you the upload date: December 11th. Imagine that -- not nine days, nor even seven days, but three days after I promised the equation ... I see no need to convince you that I had it before I promised it, but I note it'd have been a pretty rash claim otherwise. You, on the other hand said it was much too complicated to work out in a week. I think I'll forgive myself the erroneous fraction in return for comin' up with the answer more or less instantaneously. Ciao loser.)
"I'll happily discuss that aspect with y'all as soon as you point to a single
comment of mine that indicated I was ever talkin' about that."
I do believe you promised us an explanation that wasn't good for everywhere but only on that one single day (actually there's two exquinoxes in a year, now that we're getting testy ‘bout things, but…).
You want I should go back and find where that was? Or you expect that Lynnette will remember it too well for you to deny that, and so you'll throw more dust in the air here?
"I do believe you promised us an explanation that wasn't good for everywhere but only on that one single day (actually there's two exquinoxes in a year, now that we're getting testy ‘bout things, but…)."
Your syntax there doesn't scan, so I can't tell what you are claimin' I claimed.
"You want I should go back and find where that was?"
Yep. And be quick about it, whatever it is, so we can correct you one more time and put this thing to bed.
And just to be clear: my equation does what it does for every day of the year and every location. That's what I claimed. That's what I still claim. (And Lee is more hopelessly confused than even I could have imagined).
"Y'all are plumbin' new depths of cluelessness."
Seem to forget way back when and where I told ya I didn't actually give a damn if you wanted to call it ‘declination of the azimuth’ instead of parallax-- and that it was still gonna be a bitch to calculate, sure as hell no eight character equation for that one, and I just used Common English and called it parallax and didn't give a damn about your insistence on the use of specialized jargon.
You got to go this far hoping people will forget that? You hoping they don't notice your eight character stuff was actually useless just as I said it'd be?
"Your syntax there doesn't scan, so I can't tell what you are claimin' I claimed."
That was kinda rough, but I'll bet the intended audience remembers the circumstances well enough.
"declination of the azimuth"
There ain't no such thing. Flingin' out random combinations of words and attributin' them to me don't make y'all look clever. In fact it just makes it look like you're gonna call any words I use "jargon" while reservin' to yerself the right to abuse terms like parallax (which you're never gonna understand, especially now that it's not in yer interest to do so on account of yer intransigence).
Fact of the matter is I've been usin' the technically correct terms all along. Now that we have two threads full of the nonsense bein' peddled by you, I still know exactly where I stand, whereas you have got yerself hopelessly lost. But please be my guest -- find those promises you claim I made, that you threatened to drag up.
"Yep. And be quick about it, whatever it is, so we can correct you one more
time and put this thing to bed."
You misunderstand again. I asked if that's what you wanted. I didn't say I'd do it. (I might, but I think Lynnette probably remembers it, and I don't give an actual damn what you want.)
"... but I'll bet the intended audience remembers the circumstances well enough"
LOL. I'll bet they don't. I'll bet, though, that they're wonderin' why yer rabbitin' on about it instead of providin' the reference you threatened.
"I asked if that's what you wanted. I didn't say I'd do it."
Fair, enough. Note to self: Lee threats were last-gasp desperate bullshit, as expected.
"(I might, but I think Lynnette probably remembers it, and I don't give an actual damn what you want.)"
LOL. I'm more than happy for you to check if she can make head nor tail of your crazy talk.
"There ain't no such thing."
Ah, yes, it was ‘displacement of the azimuth' you called it. Big whoop.
"Fact of the matter is I've been usin' the technically correct terms all along."
Well, that's your whole trick; your one trick; your whole trick. Spout a bunch of 'technically correct terms’, pitch out a bunch of useless jargon-babble and then argue about that.
You still haven't come up with anything that would be useful from observations taken at the surface of the earth.
"Lee threats were last-gasp desperate bullshit, as expected."
Perhaps you should interpret that as a reminder to anybody in the audience who's forgotten it, and might want to be reminded. I can find it for them.
[Lee]: "Ah, yes, it was ‘displacement of the azimuth' you called it. Big whoop."
Uh, no it wasn't. I mentioned "displacement around the azimuth". I mentioned particular angles of displacement. "Displacement of the azimuth" makes no more sense than yer "declination of the azimuth".
[Lee]: "Well, that's your whole trick; your one trick; your whole trick. Spout a bunch of 'technically correct terms’, pitch out a bunch of useless jargon-babble and then argue about that."
For someone so acquinted with the English language you seem to be makin' rather a big deal of this. A displacement of sunrise around the azimuth ain't exactly rocket science. I know for a fact you know what the azimuth angle is. Seen as we've been talking about a change in the apparent position of sunrise since the get-go, y'all don't have much excuse here.
"You still haven't come up with anything that would be useful from observations taken at the surface of the earth."
I've come up with exactly what I said I was gonna come up with. Whether you consider it useful is neither here nor there. Given that you resolutely insisted on misunderstandin' what it was gonna be, despite dozens of corrections (such as this one from three weeks ago), y'all can't exactly blame me for not given ya what I never promised ya.
[Lee]: " I can find it for them."
Yeah, raaaght! This is startin' to look more than a tad pathetic.
Hmmmm, one correction here now that I think about it. One can figure the latitude from the ‘angle of ascent’ with your equation I guess, new term just up today, and I didn't think it through all the way.
But that's got absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not the sun's initial angle was 1½° ‘north of east’ or 43° ‘north of east’, nor any other observed angle from the east. That's done just by tracking the angle of the sun across the sky during the day, doesn't matter where the sun rose.
That's a whole ‘nother thing, but it is of some use.
LOLOL. I've said my last word on it. Not givin' you a chance to cover yer tracks with thousands of obfuscatory comments like previous disagreements. Told you what you were gonna get, and you got it, includin' the maths. I will entertain further requests for clarification from anyone whose name don't start with "L" ;-)
Ciao.
"That's done just by tracking the angle of the sun across the sky during the
day, doesn't matter where the sun rose."
And that would be the angle of the sun's motion relative to the 360° horizon, not relative to any measurements north/south or east/west or any other direction. One can follow it clear down to sunrise or sunset, but that's not the measurement that matters here.
"I mentioned "displacement around the azimuth…".
What you actually mentioned was:
"Displacement is 1.5° of azimuth at sunrise…"
Petes @
Tue Dec 09, 02:37:00 am
Not got to do with the ‘angle of ascent’ however. You're just jumping around now between unrelated subjects hoping to keep the argument centered on your jargon-babble.
My notice I's holding for came in. I'll let you handle Lynnette's questions for now. But, I'll be back.
Gawd. This is like punchin' smoke! Very, very, stupid smoke.
"Not got to do with the ‘angle of ascent’ however. You're just jumping around now between unrelated subjects hoping to keep the argument centered on your jargon-babble."
Oh sweet divine lord. Look at the picture I posted with the trigonometry. The trig function is exactly what relates the angle of ascent to the change in direction (i.e. the change in azimuth angle -- I'm not sure how many different ways I can say it and not jangle yer jargon nerves) of sunrise.
Not related? THAT WAS THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM!
And now that is my VERY last comment, except for I will answer clarifications about the trig picture which you clearly don't get.
NB for Lynnette,
In case you want to put up questions while I'm gone.
‘5 tan(Θ)/6’ is his equation, where theta (Θ) is the angle to be computed from.
But he switched that one out on us. That's the ‘angle of ascent’, the angle the sun takes relative to the 360° horizon during the day, anytime of day. It's not measured off of the angles ‘north of east’ or ‘south of east’ or anywhere having anything to do with figuring what's east or what we were originally discussing. It's the angle figured from the plain of the horizon, and that stays the same all the time, day in day out, even the nighttime in between, if ya stay in one spot; these calculations do not have to take any account of where was the sunrise or sunset. (Probably get more accurate calculations around mid-day when the atmospheric distortion is the least.)
That's a whole ‘nother breed of cat than what we were originally talking about. I don't remember if he perhaps mentioned his switch to the horizon as his point of reference for his angle, (I may go back and look later) but if he did, it was buried pretty deep.
Nope, Lynnette. Keep yer ears blocked up. That theta is NOT some new "angle to be computed from" (whatever that means). Theta is the observer's latitude. We all agreed from the very beginning that the answer would be a function of latitude. Even Lee managed to get as far as that statement of the obvious.
My introduction of the "ascent angle" was just to temporarily simplify the discussion. That angle is simply 90° minus the latitude. I reckon Lee can't have spent any time tryin' to understand the maths (surprise, surprise) because I have used some trigonometric identities to convert it back into a function of latitude.
[Lee]: "It's not measured off of the angles ‘north of east’ or ‘south of east’ or anywhere having anything to do with figuring what's east or what we were originally discussing."
Think again, bozo. Oh, and unlike you, I provided links. LOL.
Seems that even the 8 characters is too much for ole' Lee to take ;-)
We all remember high-school math. Sine, cosine, tangent. Specifically the tangent is the number ya get when ya divide the side opposite your angle from the adjacent side (the nearest side that's not the hypotenuse).
"Theta is the observer's latitude."
Latitude is an angle, it's the name given the measure of the angle (from a zero point at the equator), nothing more, nothing less.
Post Script:
"Latitude is an angle, it's the name given the measure of the angle
(from a zero point at the equator).
Third point being the center of the earth, contrary to what Petes believes, it still takes three points to make an angle. A measure between two points only is called a line.
"Latitude is an angle"
Gee, thanks, Einstein. Any other pearls of wisdom? LOL.
Three points to an angle. I don't believe you've owned up to that one yet.
Oh, yeah, and then there's this one. ‘5 tan(Θ)/6’ will, without more, allow one to compute one's latitude, but if ya already know the latitude that computation is pretty much worthless.
And, for a non-Einstein observation… Gawd only knows how many diagrams Petes churned up in those nine days that he's not showing us. He's been scramblin’.
"Oh, yeah, and then there's this one. ‘5 tan(Θ)/6’ will, without more, allow one to compute one's latitude, but if ya already know the latitude that computation is pretty much worthless."
Ya know, I'm tryin' to resist followin' ya into any weeds, but some of yer ravin's are so breathtakingly dumb that I can't but comment. Theta (θ, although y'all seem to be fixated on the uppercase letter) is the latitude. How are you proposin' to calculate something from a function of which it is a parameter?
"Gawd only knows how many diagrams Petes churned up in those nine days that he's not showing us. He's been scramblin’."
Ya mean I mighta done some wrong ones in the six of the nine days after the date of the upload that I gave y'all a link to? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, Einstein. As for scramblin' ... I told y'all I didn't know the answer to the question initially. Unlike y'all's self, I consider that a challenge, not a sign of cripplin' weakness.
"(θ, although y'all seem to be fixated on the uppercase letter)"
I just happen to have that one handy (I know a college frat guy), and didn't figure it made a rat's ass worth of difference.
I have, however, made the adjustment for ya.
"How are you proposin' to calculate something from a function of which
it is a parameter?"
Ah, you're starting to get the point. Ya gotta know the angle off of the north/south 0° at sunrise at the equinox, then you can compute θ--those are the only two days a year your equation is worth knowing.
My eyes are startin' to bleed. You gotta know your latitude, as was made plain right from the start (I gave you the link to your own statement of that). That's the only thing you need to know.
After that, the calculation gives you what I told you it would give you (dozens of times, most recently at Sun Dec 28, 03:25:00 pm above). And just to be clear: my equation does what it does for every day of the year (as I said most recently at Sun Dec 28, 02:40:00 pm and will keep repeatin' as often as you choose to ignore it).
Come on Lee ... surely you're jokin' at this stage. Nobody can really be this stupid?
"After that, the calculation gives you what I told you it would give you."
You told us the equation was good for what it was designed for, exact quote was:
""Useful for the exact purpose for which it was created."
Petes @ Wed Dec 10, 10:35:00 am
And you keep saying that over and over. So now you've run yourself around in a full circle. Tell us now. What was that purpose?
Actually, maybe I am startin' to get it. Lee thinks θ is some unknown that we are trying to calculate, as opposed to the latitude which we have to know in advance. Oh sweet god. You are beyond any help. I hereby officially give up.
"What was that purpose?"
Provided in the link further up thread in the last couple of hours. You think I'm gonna keep formattin' links for you while you ask the same stupid question over and over?
"Lee thinks θ is some unknown that we are trying to calculate…"
Nope not what I think, I said what I think just a few posts up.
"Useless, as I said it'd likely be"
"You hoping they don't notice your eight character stuff was actually useless
just as I said it'd be?"
"Spout a bunch of 'technically correct terms’, pitch out a bunch of useless
jargon-babble and then argue about that."
"Provided in the link further up thread in the last couple of hours."
Uh-hunh. ‘Cept only ‘The Great and Wonderful Petes’ actually knows what or where that's supposed to be, what that's supposed to mean. Been here before.
Petes and his closely guarded secrets knowledge. Still your last refuge.
I presume we're done now?
[Me]: "Lee thinks θ is some unknown that we are trying to calculate…"
[Lee]: "Nope not what I think"
[Lee, 4 posts earlier]: "5 tan(Θ)/6’ will, without more, allow one to compute one's latitude"
Since Θ is the latitude how were figgerin' on computin' it when you already have to know it? Or are you just gonna keep ignorin' ever time I point out one of yer asinine statements to y'all? You expectin' to learn anythin' that way?
"Uh-hunh. ‘Cept only ‘The Great and Wonderful Petes’ actually knows what or where that's supposed to be, what that's supposed to mean. Been here before... Petes and his closely guarded secrets knowledge. Still your last refuge. I presume we're done now?"
LOL. You'd love me to make it that easy for y'all. How about I just give you timestamps on the comments that answer yer asinine questions? Links are more trouble than yer worth, but timestamps I can do. Ain't no secrets involved, closely guarded or otherwise, I've already laid it all out for anyone capable of understandin'.
So, let's go ...
"What was that purpose?"
Sun Dec 28, 03:25:00 pm (link therein).
"Since Θ is the latitude how were figgerin' on computin' it…
You mean it won't work for that at equinox either? I'll give that some more consideration--I just thought of that today, and I's more than half distracted with real stuff, so maybe you're right there, maybe not even good for that. I'll probably have a thought on that new line come to me after awhile when I'm not even looking for it.
"Sun Dec 28, 03:25:00 pm (link therein)."
Translation, Petes can't really say himself, but does hope somebody believes there's somethin’ there.
We done now?
"You mean it won't work for that at equinox either?"
Correct. The purpose of any function is not to calculate its own parameters. I checked -- they teach that at age 11 in yore schools over there. (They're pushing for teachin' it at age 7 here ... maybe I should hold you up as the example of why that might be, uh, problematic. You are older than 11, aren't you?).
"Correct."
Even more useless then than I'd have given ya credit for.
"Translation, Petes can't really say himself, but does hope somebody believes there's somethin’ there."
LOLOLOL. All that furious Googlin' never got ya nowhere, but it does seem to have wore out yer "Ctrl/F finger". So it's too much trouble to search for a string on a web page now? Yer a ticket!
"We done now?"
I'd say you're done, yes. But you've forgotten: this ain't about you anymore. We're still awaitin' Lynnette's confirmation that she understands the three sentence explanation at Sun Dec 28, 11:32:00 am above. Not sure if you realised when you threw out that challenge that you wouldn't get to play dumb anymore. Well clearly yer still tryin' to, but I'd say it's just a tad unlikely that anyone thinks yer succeedin'. (At playin' dumb, that is ... when it comes to actually bein' dumb, yore an Olympic champion).
Back to that ‘furious’ googling thing as your wind-up I see. Never got an answer to that either. What is this thing you got ‘bout google?
Gotta go again, new notices from the real world.
Lynnette, floor's yours, I promise this time.
Yep, Lynnette, poor liddle ole Lee's Ctrl/F finger is hurtin' him. He's not able to search for those dates anymore, like Tue Dec 09, 08:58:00 pm when he said, and I quote: "The apparent displacement is function of the latitude."
Ooh. It seems he did understand that the latitude was a parameter and that the function would calculate the "apparent displacement" of sunrise (which is exactly what it does).
I do believe that was the same occasion when he also said: "The eight character equation you think you're going to produce has to actually work in the real world--many, many different latitudes for it to actually work with in the real world. Many places it'll have to match up in the real world--and 365 days a year. It has to match the real world, or it's obviously not the explanation after all".
Of course, that's exactly what the 8-character equation does. Lee told us what it had to do and it does it. His subsequent convenient lapses of memory whereby he's now demandin' to know "what was its purpose" ... well, I'll leave you to decide if maybe Lee got abducted by memory-erasing aliens between when he set out the purpose his own self, and now.
So, not done after all. Well, it'll havta wait, maybe later--I promised Lynnette the floor for now. (And I got real world horning in, but promise to Lynnette counts mostly.)
No sign of Lynnette asking anything yet today, so…
Fun facts:
Turns out the angle he's referring to in his ‘5 tan(θ)/6’ is the angle of latitude.
It's not the angle of the reading off of north of any particular sunrise or sunset.
It's not the ‘angle of ascent’ of the sun (although, not entirely coincidentally, those do match up.)
It's the latitude.
I believe he's told us the latitude is 53° at Dublin.
According to a fairly standard chart, the tangent of 53° is 1.32704.
So, 5 × 1.32704 = 6.6352 ÷ 6 = 1.105867⅔
That certainly clears things up, doesn't it?
Jeebuz. 100 new comments yet nothing to read.
"That certainly clears things up, doesn't it?"
Yep, sounds about right.
[Marcus]: "Jeebuz. 100 new comments yet nothing to read."
You're right. I've had enough of this stupid crap.
Not yet you haven't. I gave you the opportunity to call it quits--offer did not stay open.
Maybe the other calculation will help.
7 × 1.32704 = 9.28928 ÷ 12 = .77401⅔
"I gave you the opportunity to call it quits--offer did not stay open."
YAWN. You just died a death by a thousand cuts, mostly self-inflicted. Goodbye.
(And now we've got to the bit you actually can do, i.e. use a calculator, no, there's nothing wrong with those numbers).
With the holidays coming in the middle of the week my work week is kind of compressed so I haven't had a chance to get back to the discussion. I started reading the comments yesterday, but decided to finish when I had more time to think about the puzzle. Just stopped by to say I'll be back...
"I'll be back..."
Roger that Arnold.
That leaves me to consider whether or not I should whack Petes in the meantime, and have that ready for you when you get back. Or whether I should wait until you actually take the floor and have sufficient time to do your deal.
The first option has obvious appeal on account of Petes has been irritating me, but I was a bad boy once already, and jumped back in there just as soon as Petes had finished his last round of disembling to you. Makes it look like my offer to let you have the floor maybe wasn't any good. Perhaps I should display some patience, and let you do your deal first.
I'm inclined to the second option, display some patience this time. So, floor's still yours when you get back.
"Makes it look like my offer to let you have the floor maybe wasn't any good."
I'd say it makes you look like a mongrel dog yappin' at the table for whatever scraps might be left. Bad news for ya bozo, there's nuthin' left. Ya bitched and moaned yer way through three weeks when ya coulda been gittin' a free education. Maybe even contributin' something of yer own. Yer final flourish, a.k.a. yer final display of bad grace, is gonna be about how y'all think ya found a discrepancy between my equation and what timeanddate.com predicts. Sorry to break it to y'all -- I got that covered too.
So save yerself anymore bellyachin'. Indeed, save us all the bad grace and negativity. That's ain't a request neither -- I ain't continuin' this fiasco into another year. Ciao, bozo.
"Sorry to break it to y'all -- I got that covered too."
Do ya now? So, ya finally figured it out, did ya? I guess I should not be surprised. I pretty much gave it away when I corrected your errors on this page, but we're now several days out, and you've obviously learned from me some since you've started on this.
I'll explain it to Lynnette then.
"The answer is: refraction. Lee mentioned it and for some
reason discounted it early on…
***
"The angle made with the horizon is constant for a given latitude all year round, and
my formula takes the latitude as a parameter, so my formula gives the azimuthal
shift for any day of the year, anywhere on earth."
Petes @ Sat Dec 27, 10:24:00 pm
Well, the answer is, of course, not ‘refraction’, not most of it anyway. Refraction does make up a small part of it, maybe a third at his latitude, a bigger part as the parallax effect diminishes the closer to the equator ya get. That's because the general refractive effect stays the same pretty much everywhere ya go--varies a little bit with the weather, but mostly it's just that more of the shift goes into shifting the time of the sunrise than the displacement. I'm supposed to say ‘displacement’ instead of ‘declination--‘cause, according to Petes, there's supposedly no such term as ‘declination’ to associate with the azimuth. (Although Merriam-Webster would disagree with him on that one too.)
Here's the kicker: Remember the part, just above, where he said that
"The angle made with the horizon is constant for a given latitude all year round, and
my formula takes the latitude as a parameter…"
Petes @ Sat Dec 27, 10:24:00 pm
That's definitely wrong. The angle made with the horizon varies by time of year too, as I pointed out earlier.
More to the point, he's now gonna switch back from using ‘the latitude as a parameter’ to using the sun's observed ‘angle of ascent’ as the parameter (that's constant through the day for any day, or close enough as to be no matter). I think I gave him the last piece of the puzzle when I pointed out that the refractive effect was only 34’ (only about ⅓ of what he'd been figuring on) and it finally sank in with him. If the tangent is figured against the angle of sun with the horizon as the parameter, not with the latitude as the parameter then he can make this thing work.
And he can take readings of this ‘angle of ascent’ at mid-day when accurate readings can be had, rather than down on the horizon where there's more air to look through and thus more turbulence and distortion to blow the reading.
And, now the changing, not constant, ‘angle made with the horizon’ will be his parameter, not the latitude (he's now gonna switch that back).
Sorry ‘bout that Lynnette, but that last round of abuse was more than I could sit still for. I'll try to do better on my promises from here on in.
LOL. Yer into the last few hours in which I'm gonna give yer barmy ideas the oxygen they don't deserve, an' yer still determined to be a complete dolt to the very end.
"So, ya finally figured it out, did ya? I guess I should not be surprised. I pretty much gave it away when I corrected your errors on this page, but we're now several days out, and you've obviously learned from me some since you've started on this."
LMFAO. Which bit of yer buffoonery was supposed to educate me? Everything you've said, includin' the latest post, implies you either haven't looked at, or haven't understood the diagrams I supplied. I thought you were maybe startin' to show glimmers of understandin' ... now you've thrust yerself straight back into the category of "not even wrong".
"Well, the answer is, of course, not ‘refraction’, not most of it anyway. Refraction does make up a small part of it, maybe a third at his latitude, a bigger part as the parallax effect diminishes the closer to the equator ya get."
Tell ya what. We don't have much time left for me to keep pointin' out yer total lack of understandin'. So how about you post just one single link to anywhere in the great WWW that explains this effect in terms of parallax. Just one tiny link no matter how vague, that says the apparent position of the sun is shifted from its geometric position by parallax as you move from the equator. It's more than three weeks since I told you I would concede this entire argument if you could find one such link. Since we know yer a great one for the furious Googlin', and that you'd never look such a gift horse in the mouth, surely you've found that one elusive link by now? No?
No. And the reason you haven't is cos the effect is so tiny it wasn't even originally used for calculating the distance to the sun. Huygens and Cassini used Venus and Mars respectively because the parallax movement of the sun is too small to use for any practical purposes. And now I'm gonna give YOU some links. Because Cassini did indirectly measure the diurnal parallax of the sun ( = parallax that varies with difference of location on the Earth, as you have been rabbitin' on about). And here it is: page 290 of "Understanding the Heavens", Section 5.5.6 "The Fundamental Distances in the Solar System" -- 'Cassini deduced from this measurement the diurnal parallax of the Sun... he found 9".5'.
Now, in case you ain't capable of recognising the notation, 9".5 is 9.5 seconds of arc. Divide by 3600 to get degrees. It comes out to 0.002639°. That's the maximum possible parallax movement of the sun if you move to the diametrically opposite side of the earth. If you multiply it by the sine of Dublin's latitude you get exactly 0.002° , the value I gave you three weeks ago along with my calculation, and diagrams.
But hey, take the larger value of 0.0026° if you want. That gets you less than a thousandth of the size of the effect we're trying to explain. You say it's more than two thirds of the effect. Fine. Show us your calculations. Show us your references. Hell, show us anything at all other than you rabbitin' ceaselessly on about how "it's parallax" jes' cos you say so.
I gave you calculations. I gave you diagrams. Now I've given you chapter and verse. And I've given you three weeks to come up with an alternative that remotely supports your barmy claims. You've come up with zip. You seriously stickin' to yer guns on this one? (Most likely answer: yeah, of course you are -- you've never let irrefutable proof of yer idiocy stand in yer way before. LOL).
More Lee imbecility:
"That's because the general refractive effect stays the same pretty much everywhere ya go--varies a little bit with the weather, but mostly it's just that more of the shift goes into shifting the time of the sunrise than the displacement."
Ooh! Not nonsense. Totally correct. In fact, it's the whole answer. We don't need any more. If only you'd stopped right there.
"I'm supposed to say ‘displacement’ instead of ‘declination--‘cause, according to Petes, there's supposedly no such term as ‘declination’ to associate with the azimuth. (Although Merriam-Webster would disagree with him on that one too.)"
And the rest of us are supposed to not notice that yer link doesn't remotely bear you out. LOL.
"Here's the kicker: Remember the part, just above, where he said that: 'The angle made with the horizon is constant for a given latitude all year round, and my formula takes the latitude as a parameter'. That's definitely wrong. The angle made with the horizon varies by time of year too, as I pointed out earlier."
I gave you a link to an applet you can use to confirm I'm right and yore wrong. You can lead a horse to water, but if its name is Lee you won't convince him that dyin' of thirst is worse than losin' face. Again, one little link to support yer claim and the argument is over. You win.
"More to the point, he's now gonna switch back from using ‘the latitude as a parameter’ to using the sun's observed ‘angle of ascent’ as the parameter (that's constant through the day for any day, or close enough as to be no matter)."
The sun's angle of ascent at the time of sunrise is directly related to latitude. There's no point talking about any other time of day because you'd have to work in spherical geometry which is an unnecessary calculation. At local midday the sun is moving parallel to the horizon -- i.e. not remotely constant through the day. But hey, ignore me, I'm only tryin' to stop you makin' yerself look like a simpleton. But why don't I just cut to the chase and point out that you are either a liar, illiterate, or an imbecile. I told you the parameter to my function was latitude, and that's what it is. You put in anything else -- angle of ascent or whatever -- and you get the wrong answer. Have you actually used it yet? LOL
"I think I gave him the last piece of the puzzle when I pointed out that the refractive effect was only 34’ (only about ? of what he'd been figuring on) and it finally sank in with him. If the tangent is figured against the angle of sun with the horizon as the parameter, not with the latitude as the parameter then he can make this thing work."
C'mon bozo -- show us one calculation you actually did using my function. You CAN'T make it work using angle of ascent and neither can I. That's the wrong parameter. Jesus, how frickin' boneheaded you plannin' to get on this one?
"And he can take readings of this ‘angle of ascent’ at mid-day when accurate readings can be had, rather than down on the horizon where there's more air to look through and thus more turbulence and distortion to blow the reading."
Sweet divine Lord. The effect being described from day one is CAUSED BY ATMOSPHERIC DISTORTION. THAT'S THE ANSWER! You want us to measure it when the effect doesn't happen? How frickin' idiotic can you be?
"And, now the changing, not constant, ‘angle made with the horizon’ will be his parameter, not the latitude (he's now gonna switch that back)."
Nope. Still wrong. Still idiotic. Still Jesuitically refusin' to actually do the calculation.
This is maybe gonna piss you off, but the TV show I'm watching is more interesting than you are. I just skimmed the first one, figure the second is more of the same.
I'll get back to ya later--without the research into grandiose terminology you've apparently been putting into that response, and then we'll get down to brass tacks in fairly simple terms, even Marcus will get it, if he bothers to start paying attention at this late in the proceeding.
(See, you weren't done after all, no Ciao for you, Bozo.)
Oh, and finally, the one sensible thing you came up with -- about the 34' instead of 50' of angular adjustment required? That was a nice try, but it turns out to be wrong. The equinox is the instant at which the geometric centre of the sun crosses the equator, also the day on which the geometric centre of the sun is above the horizon for 12 hours. If we define the sunrise to be geometrically different (i.e. when the sun's upper limb touches the horizon) we have to allow for that as well as refraction. Admittedly the explanation for the effect is now "refraction plus the fact that we define sunrise to be such and such". But the correct offset to use is 5/6 degree, so my original function was right.
"This is maybe gonna piss you off, but the TV show I'm watching is more interesting than you are."
Nope, that's entirely to be expected. You're TV program ain't provin' you to be catastrophically wrong at anythin'. (Unless yer watchin' "The Dummies Guide to Calculating the Apparent Displacement of the Sunrise Around the Azimuth" ;-)
"we'll get down to brass tacks in fairly simple terms, even Marcus will get it, if he bothers to start paying attention at this late in the proceeding."
Good. Are you gonna be providin' anything as simple as a) evidence?, b) calculations?, c) anythin' other than yore say so?, d) outright lies about what my calculation entails?
Any of the above would be an advance on where ya been for three weeks now.
Just one thing to point out -- I'm off to bed shortly. I'll be up in the afternoon my time. I ain't wastin' the latter part of New Year's Eve on you. And this ends one way or another tomorrow. So basically, you got one more shot to show us yer not a simpleton or, worse, a lyin' simpleton.
"And this ends one way or another tomorrow."
Only if your final defense is to start deleting my posts. (60 second commercial break.)
Okay, seriously, it's been so long that I've forgotten exactly what ya'll were arguing about! So I had to refresh my memory.
Let's see, I believe the question was why there was an apparent variance in the position of sunrise between the northern and southern hemispheres.
Petes noticed that:
Looking up timeanddate.com, I see that the most southerly sunrise will be at 130°, before the sun moves north again, rising due east at the vernal equinox, and at its most northerly point of 47° on the summer solstice.
But hang on! 130° is 40° south of east, while 47° is 43° north of east. The variation in the position of sunrise is caused by the fixed tilt of the earth's axis in space, and it must be tilted toward the sun on one side of its orbit by exactly the same amount as it is tilted away on the other. What gives?
The variance being 3 degrees (Huh! Forgot Lee's degree code thingy at work). And here's my little picture to illustrate the Earth's orbit.
Lee has been saying it is due to Parallax
Petes has said the solution is Atmospheric Refraction
Is this correct so far?
I see there are more comments I will have to read.
Hi Lynnette :-)
All correct, except for one thing:
"Let's see, I believe the question was why there was an apparent variance in the position of sunrise between the northern and southern hemispheres."
Not between the northern and southern hemispheres, no. Let's restrict ourselves to the northern hemisphere. For any given location the sun rise north of due east in the summer, and south of due east in the winter. It's supposed to rise due east on the equinoxes.
The puzzle is that it rises further north of east in midsummer (on the summer solstice) than it does south of east in winter (on the winter solstice). And it doesn't even rise due east on the equinoxes. The sunrise on all three dates (and every other date, but these are the dates on which it's easy to see it's not what it should be) is shifted north of where it "should" be.
The puzzle was to explain this discrepancy and give a function to calculate its magnitude.
[Lee]: "Only if your final defense is to start deleting my posts."
Puttin' up with three weeks of nonsense seems like a reasonable expenditure of effort on my part. For your part you can, of course, talk to thin air as long as you want.
Lynnette, here's a picture on Wikipedia I hadn't come across before, showing exactly the problem.
It shows the azimuth, that is, the angular position of sunrise and sunset on the horizon for the summer and winter solstices for an observer at 56°N.
180° is due south, the position of local midday. 90° is due east.
You see the summer solstice sunrise given as 44° and the winter solstice sunrise as 136°. Those are 46° north and south of due east, respectively -- nicely symmetrical around the eastern cardinal point. But what actually happens is different. The sun rises further north than it "should" on both days.
That is our problem, as originally stated..
Aaagh! I'm out of time. I have been frantically googling and have briefly read your last link, Pete. I understand the effects of refraction on apparent elevation levels.
But I'm about to turn into a pumpkin! Gotta get some sleep. I missed my nap. :)
No worries Lynnette. I think the sun is setting on this discussion anyway ;-)
Lee's never gonna make the slightest admission of being wrong on practically every point. I could show him pictures like this and links like this till the cows come home. They show that the path of the sun follows parallel planes that intersect the horizon at different positions but exactly the same angle every day of the year. Without that knowledge you can't even begin to make sense of the diagram or function I posted. Which makes you wonder what the hell Lee has been doin' since he hasn't even got the beginning of the basics needed to understand it yet. And yet he adamantly declares it to be wrong. LOL.
G'night everybody. Tomorrow's another year.
"Lee has been saying it is due to Parallax"
No, Lee has been saying it's ‘called’ the parallax. I believe I first described it as a ‘parallax effect’. It's actually due to something else instead.
"The sun rises further north than it ‘should’ on both days.
That is our problem, as originally stated.."
Petes @ Tue Dec 30, 11:31:00 pm
(emphasis added)
Let me set that record straight here and now. The problem ‘as originally stated’ was this:
"But hang on! 130° is 40 ° south of east, while 47° is 43 ° north of east. The
variation in the position of sunrise is caused by the fixed tilt of the earth's axis in
space, and it must be tilted toward the sun on one side of its orbit by exactly the
same amount as it is tilted away on the other. What gives?"
Posted by Petes at Sunday, December 07, 2014
My response was this:
"The earth happens to be not precisely spherical. Or you're not allowing for the
fact that magnetic north is not true north. Or the sun doesn't set dead east at your
location when you think it should (not allowing for a parallax effect). Pick one;
pick more than one maybe."
Lee C. @ Sun Dec 07, 10:30:00 am
(bolding emphasis added)
I am the one who let Petes in on the fact that the sun was actually coming up further north than he thought it ‘should’. (ditto at Sun Dec 07, 07:31:00 pm)
(And, at first he denied that--said I was wrong; now he says he knew that was his problem to begin with.)
"G'night everybody. Tomorrow's another year."
Only 30 days in December for the Irish?
Oh, wait, you're thinking ‘tommorrow’ means 24 hours from from the time of your post--no way the sun is already up in Ireland, but 24 hours would work.
"Not between the northern and southern hemispheres, no. Let's restrict ourselves
to the northern hemisphere."
Yes, of course, let's let Petes restrict our thinking so we might possiblyforget what he's already written. (He may have actually figured it out by now, and would therefore want to make sure nobody looked at it his conversations too closely.)
"Only 30 days in December for the Irish?"
I can see why you'd have problems with sunrises if you haven't figured out timezones yet. Believe it or not, it's not always the same date here as it is there.
"I am the one who let Petes in on the fact that the sun was actually coming up further north than he thought it ‘should’. (ditto at Sun Dec 07, 07:31:00 pm) (And, at first he denied that--said I was wrong; now he says he knew that was his problem to begin with.)"
Last couple of days you've pretty much switched from bein' merely stupid to flat out lyin'. Not an admirable trait, but you've shown similar form when gittin' yer ass whupped before. Nevertheless, it makes you even more uninteresting.
My reply in the post immediately following yours is: "Nope, none of the above. (The first and third are true, but are not the cause of the effect)." -- emphasis added.
So where did I say you were wrong you lyin' clown? Elsewhere (couldn't be arsed diggin' it up) I credited you with finding that the magnitude of the effect I originally mentioned was double that at the equinox (which you set out at Mon Dec 08, 11:03:00 am). That hasn't been a matter of dispute.
What has been a matter of dispute is attributing it to "parallax" -- a term I've demonstrated you don't understand, and have given calculations, diagrams, and book references proving you're talkin' tosh. Dug up any of that supportin' evidence yet, after a month of furious Googlin'? LOL.
Apart from all that, you haven't made a single comment on the trigonometry I showed you for coming up with the function, apart from several mendacious claims (despite corrections from me) that it uses something other than latitude as a parameter. You either don't understand it or don't want to look at it. Suits me fine either way. You're pretty much outta runway on this one, and have yet to progress beyond talkin' gobbledygook.
"Last couple of days you've pretty much switched from bein' merely stupid…"
Not quite as stupid as you are hoping. The third, being true, was the reason for the apparent difference between the sunrise appearing at 43° ‘east of north’ at one extreme, and yet 40° ‘south of east’ 40° at the other extreme.
The earth actually is tilted by exactly the same amount both times, it's just that the equinox positioned the sunrise 1½° ‘higher’ (i.e. further north) at your latitude than than you'd expected it ‘should’ be. You'd forgotten to allow for the posibility that the equinox centered the sunrise 1½° too ‘high’ (i.e. north) at equinox To wit:
Given that at the time of writing I had no idea what was causing the discrepancy…"
Petes @ Wed Dec 10, 10:47:00 am
And now I gotta go check on my coffee…
Not quite coffee yet:
"So where did I say you were wrong you lyin' clown?"
I fairly clearly reported that you ‘said I was wrong’. Now you've switched things out to the notion that ya gotta be lyin’ if yer wrong, equivalent thins to you it would seem. You been doin’ a lot of switching things out lately.
Checking on the coffee again now.
Just ‘cause he's in one of those states where he gets gleeful at typos again…‘thins’ should be ‘things’ just above.
And ‘possibility’ needed another ‘s’ in the first post. But, I do have coffee now!
"…a term I've demonstrated you don't understand…"
What you've ‘demonstrated’ is what I told you and everybody else to begin with, I was simply using standard Common English--I don't give a rat's ass about your continued insistence that the techies have stolen the term fair and square and we commoners can't use it anymore. I do not accept your attempts to limit my use of the common language. You might as well get that through your head at some point. Now would be as good a time as is ever gonna present itself again.
And, that first post should say 43° ‘north of east’. But I do have coffee now.
I notice you've got the ‘googling furiously’ thing going on again. What's with your fixation on people perhaps googling your stuff? And, you're at the Jesuits again too. What's with that? The Jesuits somehow connected to Google in your mind?
"Not quite as stupid as you are hoping. The third, being true, was the reason for the apparent difference between the sunrise appearing at 43° ‘east of north’ at one extreme, and yet 40° ‘south of east’ 40° at the other extreme. The earth actually is tilted by exactly the same amount both times, it's just that the equinox positioned the sunrise 1½° ‘higher’ (i.e. further north) at your latitude than than you'd expected it ‘should’ be. You'd forgotten to allow for the posibility that the equinox centered the sunrise 1½° too ‘high’ (i.e. north) at equinox"
Nope. The third, being true, had the same cause as the apparent difference between the extremes. Your observation was correct, but it was incorrect to offer it as the explanation of anything. The problem then just switched from explaining the discrepancy at the extremes to explaining the discrepancy at the equinox. You seem to think I was pulling a fast one in switching the problem definition -- actually I was just following your lead which, for a brief blissful moment, was actually helpful instead of antagonistic and Jesuitical. An explanation whereby "the equinox positioned the sunrise 1½° ‘higher’" in a real, geometric sense, could be instantly discounted as being contrary to the definition of the equinox, and I did so discount it.
"What you've ‘demonstrated’ is what I told you to begin with, I was simply using standard Common English--don't give a rat's ass about your insistence that the techies have stolen the term fair and square and we commoners can't use it anymore."
LOL. If you were using standard Common English, I'd expect you to be able to come up with one single reference from the entire contents of the Web in support of your usage. You had three weeks to do it, and plenty to gain from it, and yet here we are -- bereft of a shred of evidence in your support. Seems yore "standard Common English" is utterly unique to you? Do you ever reflect on how that looks? No, didn't think so.
In fact, my usage is not only the common one, but the only one. As I showed you, parallax is used exclusively in the sense of association with triangulation, not rotational movement, not standin' on yer head, nor anything else. Ya still got an hour or two to prove me wrong on that one. One little link would suffice. LOL.
"Your observation was correct, but it was incorrect to offer it as the explanation
of anything."
I see I will have to do this one more time--gotta be coming up on eight or nine times now.
"You seem to have yourself way confused. Parallax isn't the cause. It is the
observed result."
Lee C. @ Mon Dec 08, 03:48:00 pm
"Post Script:
"I think this is the fourth time you've said something was ‘because parallax’.
I would remind you again that the parallax effect is not a cause; it's an effect."
Lee C. @ Tue Dec 09, 02:08:00 am
"In fact, my usage is not only the common one, but the only one."
Merriam-Websters tends to disagree, as I do I. According to Merriam-Webster the techies have, by now, expanded the use of the word ‘parallax’ to where there's now at least 11 other techie specific terms all revolving around various techie specific uses of the word ‘parallax’.
"I'd expect you to be able to come up with one single reference from the entire
contents of the Web in support of your usage…"
I figured the dictionary was one single reference and quite sufficient for need. Contrary to your fantasies, I've not been spending time ‘googling’ this. In fact, I happen to be shopping today.
Now there's a thought, maybe you're just disturbed that all your howling has been dismissed as unimportant, and that's what's driving you.
That it Petes? You think you're finally gonna drive me into take you seriously, and getting me to start ‘googling furiously’ is gonna be the proof of your success?
"Merriam-Websters tends to disagree, as I do I... I figured the dictionary was one single reference and quite sufficient for need."
Nope, the dictionary never disagreed with me, only with you and yer ravings. If we were to take yer own example of the apparent position of a fish under water, we expect to see the fish at a certain position owing to the geometry of the situation, whereas we actually see it at another due to refraction. This is not "the apparent displacement or the difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points". There is only a single point from which the fish is seen.
Exactly the same is true of the apparent displacement of the sun from its geometric position due to refraction. You, of course, having boxed yerself into an idiotic misuse of the term, and refusing to climb down from it even now, started rabbitin' on about the mythical "other point" for your parallax effect bein' a point in the eastern Atlantic (Sun Dec 07, 07:31:00 pm). Although you've revised that to being the equator generally, your ravings are as loonie now as they were then.
What's more, I gave you the maximum magnitude of any actual parallax effect, along with diagrams, calculations, and references. They categorically prove you to be talking through yer anus. You think, in the face of that, yer gonna come off as anything other than petulant, stickin' to yer obvious abuse of the dictionary and failin' to come up with one single reference? LOL. You're a bigger chump than I ever imagined.
"Now there's a thought, maybe you're just disturbed that all your howling has been dismissed as unimportant, and that's what's driving you."
Nope, rather it pains me to see such incorrigible ignorance. And I genuinely am interested to figure out if you're really this stupid, or really so injured by a bit of free education from me as to be this stubborn. Either would be a marvel. However, bein' a gentle person by temperament, pokin' at ya too long makes me start to feel sorry for ya, in spite of ya doin' yer best to deserve no sympathy. So it's really gotta end just about now. I don't really any longer hold out any hope of us havin' a civil conversation.
"This is not "the apparent displacement or the difference in apparent direction
of an object as seen from two different points".
Dublin and a point at the equator are two points, Dublin being some miles away from the equator.
"Nope, rather it pains me to see such incorrigible ignorance."
You apparently have no idea how little I give a damn about your suffering.
So, what's your thing with Google and the Jesuits? You think they're in cahoots to get ya or some such thing?
[Me]: "This is not "the apparent displacement or the difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points".
[Dope]: "Dublin and a point at the equator are two points, Dublin being some miles away from the equator."
And yer oft-parroted comment might make ya look a bit less stupid if I hadn't already told you and showed you that the parallax movement of the sun due to that separation is less than 0.002 degrees. Sorry to have to keep callin' yer stupidity so many times, but I see no alternate response to yer stonewallin'. Plus, yer stubborness adds a bit of fun to the whole process. :)
"You apparently have no idea how little I give a damn about your suffering."
Now that's a cruel response to my catholic instinct for doling our free education. Especially after the extra effort I made to accommodate yore particular lack of aptitude. LOL.
Spotted this:
"Contrary to your fantasies, I've not been spending time ‘googling’ this. In fact, I happen to be shopping today. "
They have shops in them backwoods? Whatcha buyin? A thrupenny bag o' kindlin'? If I were you I'd start by burnin' that dictionary that's let ya down so badly. :)
"So, what's your thing with Google and the Jesuits? You think they're in cahoots to get ya or some such thing?"
No, but it sounds great. If I ever aim to write a Dan Brown-esque novel, I bags first claim on the idea. :)
"…if I hadn't already told you and showed you that the parallax movement of the
sun due to that separation is less than 0.002 degrees."
That might make a difference if were talking about something that is due to, caused by, the "movement of the sun". But, we're talking about the shift in the apparent position of the sunrise, and that's actually caused by something else. But, we've done this before, long time before:
"Over to you to explain why it's displaced 1.5 degrees to the north."
[by Petes}
"First, there's the angle of the tilt of the axis to the Earth's plane of orbit to figure in.
Second, there's the shift in the direction (the plane) of the perceived horizon from
point to point as one moves across the globe. Then there's the actual degree
measurement to get, what would be measured across the relevant distance
between the two points on Earth if the two horizons were in the same plane (which
they are not often and never in the case of Dublin and the equator), then there's the
arc and width of the sun to consider, and we're now down to half a degree (as the
width of the sun according to you earlier), and your charts round off the
measurements to the nearest degree, so we're at the margin of error right here and
don't need to throw in any further factors which would lead to any changes of less
than 30 minutes, like perhaps refraction or the variable distance to the sun from the
elliptical orbit. It's gonna be a fairly complicated math problem and I don't even
intend to try to set it up and solve it, even with a computer. That's why they
publish those charts."
Lee C. @ Tue Dec 09, 04:48:00 am
At which point you informed me that the plain of the local horizon never changes (ditto @ Tue Dec 09, 06:20:00 am); you will now be trying to figure out how to reverse yourself or otherwise explain that one away; should be interesting to watch; (You'll have to explain away the ‘first’ problem too, but I already know how you're gonna do that, and it's not a big deal anyway.)
And, as far as shopping goes, there's this thing called the internet…
(I did underestimate the refraction of the sun--turns out it's 34’ not under 30' as I'd come up with after running it through my head to get a rough estimate, but that only accounts for less than ⅓ of the apparent shift at Dublin's latitude.)
And, it's only displaced by 1½° at equinox. At solstice it's displaced by either 43° or 40° depending on which.
No, wait, been awhile since I ran this through my mind--the ‘first’ thing is a rather big deal after all, because you originally tried to make that out as irrelevant. Maybe I don't know how you're gonna explain that away after all.
I've decided to purchase locally--looks like a tomorrow project then.
So, before I go away to the real world for awhile… I decided to look up that "geocentric parallax" that was listed in Merriam-Websters. It wanted me to try a paid-for subscription to their Bigger and Better collection. So I went to the Free Online dictionary instead.
"Noun 1. geocentric parallax - the parallax of a celestial body using
two points on the surface of the earth as the earth rotates."
Then I found what worked for me as a back door into Merriam-Websters Bigger and Better; might work for you too.
"Full Definition of GEOCENTRIC PARALLAX
": the difference in the apparent direction or position of a celestial body as
observed from the center of the earth and from a point on the surface of the earth"
Try to trigonometry those away, jackass.
*Looks out into the heavens*
And they wanted me to be the decider in chief on who wins this debate?
I wouldn't touch that job with a ten foot pole!
But I am finding the research of astronomy I've been doing rather interesting. :)
My music appreciation professor gives out less homework, though. I only had to look up the term "wub". lol!
"And they wanted me to be the decider in chief on who wins this debate?
Actually, no, I would expect you'll wanna keep your opinion on that one to yourself.
I do have some questions on refraction. I understand that the light is being bent when it hits the varying layers of the atmosphere. I do not know the contents of the varying layers, but does it stay the same? Would any change cause the refraction angle to change? How does temperature affect refraction? Would increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere due to climate change have any effect on the observed effect of refraction of the sun?
Actually, no, I would expect you'll wanna keep your opinion on that one to yourself.
Lee, I'm simply not knowledgeable enough on the subject to even make an informed guess. But except for the digression into argument it is an interesting debate. It makes me study things I haven't even looked at in years. :)
"Lee, I'm simply not knowledgeable enough on the subject to even make
an informed guess."
Which subject? English or trigonometry?
"I do not know the contents of the varying layers, but does it stay the same?"
Generally yeah, stays the same (ozone tends to concentrate in a thin layer real high, but ozone isn't any more or less refractive than is two molecule oxygen I don't think). Gases tend to sort out by density, but the churning of the atmosphere (weather) tends to keep that in check.
"Would any change cause the refraction angle to change?"
Anything that would effect the speed of the light will cause a change (light travels faster through air than through water, faster through space than through air).
"How does temperature affect refraction?"
Wouldn't much, except at extreme temperatures maybe and probably not even then so long as the gases remained clear. I don't think it's a factor.
"Would increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere due to climate change have
any effect on the observed effect of refraction of the sun?"
Probably not, I don't think carbon-dioxide is any more or less refractive than any of the other ‘invisible’ gases. Steam, maybe. Some people define steam as tiny water droplets and not a true gas at all, depends on your definition I guess.
And the light doesn't actually ‘bend’ at any particular point that I know of. It sorta curves in as the density of the gases increase and the speed of the light decreases.
Probably only ‘steam’ if it's also hot as well as tiny. Tiny water droplets also cause rainbows. But I don't think anybody calls those ‘steam’.
"That might make a difference if were talking about something that is due to, caused by, the "movement of the sun".
LOL. Playin' the stupid card right to the end. The parallax movement of the sun has nothin' to do with "the movement of the sun". It is an apparent effect only, a change in perspective, as is all parallax movement. Even you probably know that, but yer last remainin' defence is to stall to the end, even it means bein' dumb.
"First, there's the angle of the tilt of the axis to the Earth's plane of orbit to figure in... blah blah blah"
Reminds me of some 1960s song I can't quite put my finger on. Or Johnny from the movie Airplane: first the dinosaurs came, then they died and turned into oil etc. So what? There's lots of things. Ya didn't even attempt to say which ones were factors. As it happens, your entire list contains exactly zero relevant factors. It was "gonna be a fairly complicated math problem" alright -- havin' to work out a solution without a single correct parameter. LOL.
"At which point you informed me that the plain of the local horizon never changes"
Never said any such thing. Don't believe there is any such thing but ya have me too bored to think about it. Anyway, chalk up another lie to you.
"I did underestimate the refraction of the sun--turns out it's 34’ not under 30' as I'd come up with after running it through my head to get a rough estimate, but that only accounts for less than ⅓ of the apparent shift at Dublin's latitude"
Yep, and I drew you pictures a child could understand showin' how that half degree change in altitude can produce an arbitrarily large shift in azimuth. I reckon you probably understand that too. Playin' the stoopid card again cos you know yer licked.
"And, it's only displaced by 1½° at equinox. At solstice it's displaced by either 43° or 40° depending on which."
Nope, it's not. Leastways not the displacement we were ever discussin'. The axial tilt produces that change, but we'd be back in kindergarten if that was ever the topic under discussion. (But it wasn't, as you know -- another lie chalked up).
"No, wait, been awhile since I ran this through my mind--the ‘first’ thing is a rather big deal after all, because you originally tried to make that out as irrelevant. Maybe I don't know how you're gonna explain that away after all. "
No idea which of your lists yer talkin about now. There's at least two I know of. One contained nothing at all relevant, the first item in another was true as I acknowledged up thread. We've been through it all before.
"I decided to look up that "geocentric parallax" ... blah blah blah blah blah ... Try to trigonometry those away, jackass.
LMAO. More scattergun blasts of furious Googlin' to the end. Geocentric parallax is a completely common method owin' to gravity actin' through the centre of a body, so that orbital calculations are all geocentric. Then the actual perspective from a point on the earth's surface gives a parallax shift. It's been in use for years -- in fact it was the method they first used to try to measure longitude before the first accurate clocks, by sightin' on the moon. It's nothin' but trigonometry ya donkey. In fact, just do a Google image search on "geocentric parallax" and you'll get nothin' but pictures with trigonometry.
{Lynnette]: "And they wanted me to be the decider in chief on who wins this debate? I wouldn't touch that job with a ten foot pole!"
Understandable ;-)
"But I am finding the research of astronomy I've been doing rather interesting. :)"
Of course it is -- it's about the most fascinating subject around! :)
[Lee]: "Actually, no, I would expect you'll wanna keep your opinion on that one to yourself."
Actually, no, I'd expect you want her to keep her opinion to herself. 'Cos there's no way it was ever gonna be in support of you -- you never actually said anything of import in the end. No equations, no references, no nuthin'. LOL.
Lynnette, I'd agree with nearly all Lee's comments on refraction in air. It's all about density, not so much about composition.
Refraction is only really an issue when you are looking at objects on or near the horizon (as with the issue we've been discussing all along). Astronomers adjust for refraction all the time to allow for the difference between the known and apparent positions of stars. But an amateur like me would completely ignore it because it makes no practical difference for altitudes above ten degree from the horizon, and objects lower than that are usually too distorted and "twinkly" to take an interest in (except for the aesthetic pleasure of a sunrise).
Down at horizon level, the refraction becomes extreme because you are looking through a very thick layer of dense atmosphere, and obliquely through more rarefied layers.
Only place I would disagree with Lee is that temperature is extremely important as it affects density. Often there is heating at ground level since the air, being fairly transparent, is more effectively heated by the warm ground than the sun. This can cause a temperature inversion -- less dense air at ground level with denser air both above, and in your line of sight to the horizon. This can cause double-refraction extreme enough to show inverted images, as with some mirages, or upside-down copies of sunrises etc.
It never occurred to me before that at higher latitudes the slanted angle of the rising sun can move the apparent sun along the horizon as well as upward. Seems obvious now (more so, after trying to beat it into Lee for a month).
The apparent movement is only very significant for latitudes in the Arctic circle, but I've run my function against those and there is a pleasing concurrence. (You have to allow for effects like the solstices not occurring at the time of sunrise, so you have to interpolate the shift across too successive sunrises). But it broadly works. Pity Lee never actually tested it, instead of railing against it. There were quite a few more interesting things to be said about it that we'll never get to. Oh well ....
And now it's headin' for half an hour to the New Year here, and the arguments must end while I wish all here a HNY. Hope the new year brings you all you want, and plenty of larnin' for Lee (and the rest of us). Might be a while before I get to post again. Good luck all.
Post a Comment