I am moving this discussion up here since the other comments section has flipped past the 200 comments limit.
So, if you think he's actually got something valuable going on here, then by all means, come out in his defense and support. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
PeteS would be better suited to argue his hypothesis than I would. But it is an interesting subject and it would be nice to see an argument made without any ruffles and flourishes. :)
Given the spherical nature of the Earth and that light curves when refracted I was wondering if that would cause the asymetric effect that Pete described? That is refraction moving in an apparent sideways nature when viewed from a point on Earth?
As you know I am very very rusty when it cones to trig. So does Pete's formula work?
"PeteS would be better suited to argue his hypothesis than I would."
Maybe not, but we're not likely to see any progress if we discuss Petes and his suitabilities. So… Moving right along…
"Given the spherical nature of the Earth and that light curves when refracted I was wondering if that would cause the asymetric effect that Pete described? That is refraction moving in an apparent sideways nature when viewed from a point on Earth?"
For an instant I thought you had it, you were on top of it, and then I got to the second sentence, so I had to go back to the first sentence and re-read that, and then I realized that I'd lead you astray with that piece of information about how the the light curves down through the atmosphere rather than ‘bending’ at any particular, specific point. So, if interpret your question correctly, the short answer is ‘no’, the refraction is made in a long curve rather than a sudden bend, but it still curves down by pretty much the same distance down that it would drop if it were experiencing a sudden bend instead. The total distance down is pretty much the same (probably not exactly, but close ‘nuff for our purposes, close ‘nuff that Petes could use a bend rather than a curve for his diagram and I didn't object.)
"As you know I am very very rusty when it cones to trig. So does Pete's formula work?"
Well, that depends on what you mean by ‘work’. It calculates five sixths of the tangent for the angle θ, assuming we imply the missing multiplication sign and the missing equal sign and the missing character for the variable being calculated. But 5×(sinθ)/6 = ? calculates five sixths of the sine of the angle theta, and 5×(cosθ)/6 = ? calculates five sixths of the cosine of the angle theta. They all ‘work’ if you mean that there's no reason one can't do the calculation, there's no dividing by zero or anything else that'll toss a calculator into a frenzy. But, ‘3 + 3 = ?’ also ‘works’ to that extent. However, ‘work’ might also imply that it does something, does some work (used as a noun this time not as a verb). Then the question is, what does it do? Start out with… What is the value for theta? How do we figure out what theta is in the first place? And what do we get out of doing the calculation once we've settled on theta?
Oh crap! If you're doing research then let me re-write Petes' math expression for you so that it's readable and workable, not intentionally written to confuse people rather than enlighten them. Try this one instead… ‘(tanθ) × 5/6 = ?’. What's theta? (We'll get to the five sixths (5/6) part fairly quickly after that,)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "Let's hope we get to see some wars simmer out or even stop this year and no new ones started."
That would be good. Raising a mug here to the ‘no more war’ notion.
I will write my comment without the math at first, I think. I tend to use that method to think through problems. But I will have to get to it later as I am at work right now.
Just stopped in real quick to let you know that I paid $1.849 for gas this morning at Costco. :)
This is what I understand Pete to be saying. (I may not be as technical in my terms as he was.) I will let him know what I am arguing so that he may correct me if I am wrong. I am going to review the basics for a start to get everything clear in my mind.
As a person stands at the equator and looks to the east he/she will see the sun rising vertically. If that person moves further north their view of the sun is at an angle or "slant".
The Earth is orbiting the sun with its axis in a tilted position. As the Earth revolves around the sun the tilt of the axis goes from an extreme position pointed towards the sun, which is the summer solstice, to an extreme position pointed away from the sun, which is the winter solstice. Because of the axial tilt the position of sunrise on the horizon, or azimuth, changes as the Earth orbits the sun.
Because of the "slanted" view of the sun's path and the apparently higher position of the sun caused by refraction, we see the sun rise earlier and further north than its actual location. This is what is causing the variance Pete noticed.
Yeah, I know you already know the info behind the links, but I wanted to add a little color and interest to my comment. :)
So far we're on the same page. I follow all of that; I even agree with that. Refraction will cause the sun to appear earlier than the moment when it actually crosses the horizon (and therefore side-shifted some).
The question is: How much earlier? How much side-shift does that account for. I first said it was under 30’ (I did a rough run-through of the objects in my head and got a rough estimate, which came in at less than 30’ (half a degree--½°).) That would round down and have no effect on the final (rounded to degrees) results posted at timeanddate.com. But, I was wrong about that, it comes to 34’, just barely over half a degree, so it will affect the final result, but not nearly enough to itself account for the sun being 1½° ‘north of east’ at the equitorial equinox. The not so far acounted for shift of the sunrise north is 90' (1½°) minus 34' (the standard refractive shift of the sun, which we got from Wiki and Petes was more than willing to accept up ‘til now). 90 - 34 = 56. 56’ is the minimum, so far unaccounted for, shift to the north. It might be as high as 70’ (Figure 105‘ would round up to 2° (120') and 104' would round down to 1½° (90')).
How do we account for the rest, that part that's somewhere between or including 56’ and 70’?
"Theta, as labeled by Petes, is equal to latitude."
So far, so good. Latitude, at Dublin, is 53° (and 21’ minutes if I remember it right from Wiki's list, but we've been rounding it down to 53° from the beginning.) At winter solstice the latitude, at Dublin remains still 53°; latitude in Dublin is always at 53° latitude. However, sunrise today was 129°. That's 39° ‘south of east’ and sunset is 39° ‘south of west’. I checked his chosen authority.
5×tan(θ)/6 still comes out to exactly the same number it was before, but the sunrise is now 39° off of east, not 1½° off (not that his result is 1½° in the first place, it was, in fact, .77401⅔.) We seem to be missing some necessary calculations to explain today's readings. Eight characters hasn't gotten us anything useful past the date of the equinox.
Weather is turning here. We're starting to get some wind. It sounds like it's really blowing out in western MN, and snowing. Good night to hibernate and ruminate about math. lol!
Got it, clarified. Petes will probably tell you to use seven twelves 7/12 instead of 5/6.
"Don't know how that converts to degrees."
Magic incantations on account of he's already run it to nine characters starting out and it ain't there yet. (I think the magic has to do with calculating in radians and they magically convert themselves into degrees because that's what he needs to happen--he's been working this pretty hard)
I think we're real close knowing what each of us know. I'll give you a link and an explanation here soon and see if we can't cut some of this short and get to the end fairly soon.
Truth is, the total side-shift attributable to diffraction is 16' (16 arcminutes), not 34' (34' is the total vertical shift), but I didn't want to swap in a new number I hadn't sprung on Petes yet. Now that we're getting to the end, that's not so important.
I had a thought pestering me as I tried to wander away to other things.
"That's the distance between actual sunrise and apparent sunrise on the horizon, caused by…"
I thought your original question was about whether or not the 3° ‘discrepancy’ occurred everywhere? I'm pretty sure I didn't break down and point out that the sunrise wasn't actually asymetric (it is centered, just centered in a different place than you thought) until several day later.
I had a thought pestering me as I tried to wander away to other things.
"That's the distance between actual sunrise and apparent sunrise on the horizon, caused by…"
I thought your original question was about whether or not the 3° ‘discrepancy’ occurred everywhere? I'm pretty sure I didn't break down and point out that the sunrise wasn't actually asymetric (it is centered, just centered in a different place than you thought) until several day later.
"The 5/6 in the equation is the factor for vertical refraction."
That's the factor for verticle ‘displacement’. Which is larger than merely the ‘refraction’. The displacement is 50' (50 arcminutes), the refraction portion of that is only 34' (34arcminutes.) More on this later. Meantime:
"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." Petes @ Sun Dec 28, 02:31:00 pm
(He's wrong about the need to take the half-diameter of the sun into account, we gotta deal with that too in order to explain the full ‘discrepancy’, but we'll get to that later. I hope to get to it today. But he did finally figure out the 5/12ths part.)
Well if nothing else I have come to understand a little better what you and Petes have been talking about!
I once told someone that I think better when I'm sleeping. lol! I have found that to be true with this puzzle as well. Maybe it has to do with the fact that during the day my mind is clogged up with all of the tasks I have to do that I have no time to think about much else.
Petes is using a right triangle to illustrate the view of sunrise looking east.
Scroll down to where this link talks about the hypotenuse, flip the triangle upside down and Point C becomes apparent sunrise and point B becomes actual sunrise. Side AB is the actual path of the sun. Draw a line paralleling AB running through point C and that is the path of the sun due to refraction. Angle A is theta.
Okay, so when I use 7/12 instead of 5/6 I get a value of .58333 for latitude 45 °, which is Minneapolis and a value of .7741094 for a latitude of 53°, which is Dublin. I think you had worked that out in an earlier comment.
"Petes is using a right triangle to illustrate the view of sunrise looking east."
That's the usual way to do it.
Let's start out with a new bit of information that Petes has failed to consider, or even seemingly to comprehend. The variance ‘north of east’ is 1½° in Dublin only on the equinox. The break from where the sunrise appears, and where it ‘should’ appear absent a parallax shift, is 1½° at equinox (generally I will be referring to the equitorial equinox), rising to 18½° at solstice, and 4½° of that latter number figures by working with ‘refraction’. The other 14° of variation from equitorial readings on the same day are all about entirely other things.
By solstice the specific side-shift that Petes is now trying to get to somehow figure up in something at least approaching eight characters (having abandoned all hope of actually hitting his target), that's 4½° in Dublin, the angle associated with that much shift approaches 77° (23½° for the sun swinging that far south of the equator, to the Tropic of Capricorn, added to the 53+° for Dublin). This is nearabout the same reading that ya'd get in say, Grise Fiord, Canada at the equinox. At the next equinox the side shift in Grise Fiord, Canada will be about 4½° which is what Dublin experienced just a week or so ago. At the summer solstice after the next equinox the relevant angle will be just under 20° in Dublin (53+°minus the 23.5° from the the Tropic of Cancer, at which Tropic of Cancer the sun will be dead set due east at sunrise, then on south to the equator where the sun will not be.) Simply put, the angle one has to find to start this calculation out is the angle between the spot on the planet where the sun actually rises from dead set due east that morning. That'll be somewhere between the Tropic of Capricorn or the Tropic of Cancer, cycling back and forth between the two, and it will be at the equator on only two specific days per year. That means latitude won't work as your variable except on those two specific days a year popularly known as the equinox. The side-shift drops to 0° in Dublin on the 18th/19th of March (local equinox--a couple of days before the official equatorial equinox; I think local equinox strikes overnight in Dublin on that day.)
Now, on to the refraction itself. It would be perhaps good to study on the yellow suns in the diagram down low on this Wiki page. As you can maybe figure from the diagram for yourself, the total amount of possible side-shift just from ‘refraction’ tops out at 16’, half the diameter of the sun. The reason you think the refraction creates side-shift is because the ‘slant’ either increases or decreases the apparent effect of the refraction by sliding the 16’s of refraction amount forward or backwards--change the slant, and the amount of side-shift changes. The actual amount of refraction, however, remains exactly the same both times.
I sent you an e-mail with an attachment, a bmp file with some additions on it to make this perhaps easier to grasp. The amount of refraction never changes (other than with atmospheric conditions, weather, that we've been ignoring for our purposes, and so I'll continue to ignore it) The slant changes; so does the side-shift. It's the slant that's causing most of the side-shift at equinox at Dublin's latitude, and all of the change in the side-shift as it increases or decreases, not something to do with the refraction itself. The refraction itself never increases nor decreases.
So, how does the ‘slant’ change? The equator is fixed and permanent relative to the sun; the latitude is also fixed and permanent relative to both the equator and the sun. (Call this angle the ‘slope’ maybe.) So, how do we get the changes if the equator, the latitude, and the refraction are all three fixed and permanent? The north pole swings around and around is how. (Maybe, just maybe, Petes should have given in and let you call that ‘wobble’, as was your first inclination. I'm not sure there's really a better term to use among us common folks. Or, maybe there is, maybe ‘slant’ is a better term for these two-dimensional representations than is ‘wobble’ (although the movement occurs in a three-dimensional real world, and on a sphere to boot--so ‘wobble’ is probably a better term actually) either case, I'll describe a simple demonstration for you later, might help you get your head around the ideas in play here.)¹
Anyway… As the North Pole swings around and around, also the Dublin horizon moves around, (some less than at the poles but it still moves around), it's changing angle against the sun. The horizon that rocks back and forth relative to the sun--the sun is at 53° ‘slant’, i.e. 37° ‘south of east’ in Dublin at sunrise on that one day, but only on that one day (well, two days). The ‘slope’ remains at 53° all year round--latitude, ‘angle of ascention’ both measure off of this angle. It's the ‘slant’ that changes; and it slowly works the refraction up over the slope, but all the movement, all the change is vertical; refraction always bends down not sideways. So, Petes' little math expression (can't quite call it an equation yet) doesn't ‘work’ to explain the side-shift except on those particular two days of the year when the slope and the slant catch up with each other (equinox). So, now, the question is: How much of this did you catch the first go-‘round. I never claimed I was a good teacher. I may have to do this again, and we will have to hope I do it better next time.
Couple of things Petes might learn from all this though, there's more to trigonometry than just learning how to spell it and then spelling it as often as he thinks he can work it in; it helps to actually understand how it works; and I don't get impressed with, nor feel threatened by, his regular forays into empty, sometimes random jargon-babble.
¹ Demonstration (experiment) as follows: ――――――――――――――― 1. need a generally flat surface, a ruler or a book or even just your hand held out flat. 2. need a light source--computer screen will work.
Hold the flat surface at an angle to the light source--slanted down left-to-right or right-to-left, depending on which hand you use. (Like the refraction demonstration.) Edge on to the light (edge to you), between you and the light. Holding that angle constant, rock the flat surface towards the light and then away. The left-to-right or right-to-left angle remains constant (if you're doing this right)--that's the ‘angle of ascent’ Petes mentioned--that's also the latitude; that's the slope. The other angle changes; we've been calling that ‘the slant’. That's the angle that matters. It probably has a name. I don't know what that is off the top of my head. Neither does Petes--he's still figuring out that he just got his college astro-whatever educated ass clocked by a hillbilly, again.
[Lynnette]: Petes is using a right triangle to illustrate the view of sunrise looking east.
[Lee]: That's the usual way to do it.
I'm glad that you and Petes can agree on something. :)
[Lee]: The variance ‘north of east’ is 1½° in Dublin only on the equinox.
Er...I'm not seeing that at all, Lee. I will use timeanddate.com as reference for dates and Dublin as the location. On the spring equinox on March 20 the sun rises at 89° and on the autumnal equinox the sun rises at 89°, meaning there is no discrepancy. It is the summer solstice of June 21 where the sun rises at 47° and the winter solstice where the sun rises at 130° where we are discussing a discrepancy.
Yes it is understood that the factor for refraction remains the same.
The 5/6 in Petes' formula is made up of the refraction factor and half the diameter of the sun. So the calculated figures of 1.12 for Dublin and .8333 for Mpls. are correct.
My question for Petes was why those numbers would be different if the discrepancy between the dates of the solstices was the same for both locations. The answer was rounding:
Apparent sunrise at summer solstice for Dublin: 47 - 1.12 = 45.88 Apparent sunrise at summer solstice for Dublin rounded: 46
Apparent sunrise at winter solstice for Dublin: 130 - 1.12 = 128.88 Apparent sunrise at winter solstice for Dublin rounded: 129
Apparent sunrise at summer solstice for Mps: 47 - .8333 = 46.1667 Apparent sunrise at summer solstice for Mpls rounded: 46
Apparent sunrise at winter solstice for Mps: 130 - .8333 = 129.1667 Apparent sunrise at winter solstice for Mpls rounded: 129
As you can see the numbers, once rounded, end up being the same. So the difference in the figures I calculated, 1.12 and .8333 is irrelevant with regard to the discrepancy.
Timeanddate.com also rounds its figures. The more numbers in your calculation that are rounded, the less exact you will be.
As for this:
Simply put, the angle one has to find to start this calculation out is the angle between the spot on the planet where the sun actually rises from dead set due east that morning. That'll be somewhere between the Tropic of Capricorn or the Tropic of Cancer, cycling back and forth between the two, and it will be at the equator on only two specific days per year. That means latitude won't work as your variable except on those two specific days a year popularly known as the equinox.
That's something for Petes to chew over if he's got the time. :)
And now...Downton Abbey is about to come on, and I can't miss that! So I'm off for the night. ;)
"On the spring equinox on March 20 the sun rises at 89° and on the autumnal equinox the sun rises at 89°, meaning there is no discrepancy."
It was the same last year. Check for March 20 and September 23 of 2014. (The variation in autumnal dates is probably due to the elliptical nature of earth's orbit, the year beginning date of 1 January doesn't match up cleanly with the ellipsis in Earth's orbit--damned inconsiderate of the ancient astronomers in my opinion not to get with whomever determined the New Year's date--that's my first guess anyway--or it may be the leap year building up on us. I'd have to do some tedious calculations or furiously googling to determine which is behind it, or if there's another variable there, but the dates of the actual as opposed to calculated equinoxes are known to vary. My local weatherman mentions it damn near every year come time to announce the equinox--it's a thing of his.) The difference between the two 1° calculations given for the two dates, and the 3° combined total at the extremes is, as Petes said, almost certainly due to rounding.
Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think the extremes of the ellipsis match up perfectly with the extreme outside edges of the tilt--so this may be God's fault rather than the ancient astronomer's fault.
"So the calculated figures of 1.12 for Dublin and .8333 for Mpls. are correct."
They are correct for the total displacement. You said you wanted to know about the displacement on account of refraction.
"The 5/6 in the equation is the factor for vertical refraction." Lynnette @ Sun Jan 04, 12:13:00 am
It's the total displacement that's 5/6ths, only 34' out of the 50' is from refraction. The other 16' is from changing between the center of the sun (to do the calculations) and the edge of the sun (to do the measurements).
An issue that hasn't been talked about too much. Just what happens to foreign nationals fighting in Iraq for ISIL if they are captured by coalition forces?
"Just what happens to foreign nationals fighting in Iraq for ISIL if they are captured by coalition forces?"
Kinda depends on how foreign they happen to be. We captured a kid fighting for the Taliban, and he got it down to 20 years for a guilty plea. The State Department and the Justice Department are both taking the position that they've got treason cases, and the death penalty is authorized by the Constitution. The French have intercepted and jailed at least a couple of would be returnees, don't know if their legal status has been ultimately decided yet. The Brits have a policy that it's a criminal offense, Germans have picked up a few and they're awaiting trial too.
I believe most of the rest of Europe is hoping to not make news, or make waves--basically hoping to not attract too much attention from ISIS.
That's all assuming they are not turned over to Iraqi authorities. In our case without our troops participating in ground activities, except in an advisory capacity, we would have little say in the disposition of prisoners captured in battle. Unless, of course, some agreement has been reached in this situation. I don't know if that is the case or not. So, as with the Australians, we could end up with someone from the US who has been fighting for ISIL subject to Iraqi laws and justice.
Probably most people would agree with you. I suppose it is not something the average 20 something who is looking to make some kind of mark for himself/herself is overly concerned with though. They think they are invincible.
Did you see the news this morning about the terror attack on the newspaper in France? Twelve people killed, including the editor. It's a direct challenge to free speech. Starts to get that "Don't Tread on Me" feeling going all over again...
We may not always agree with the French, but this kind of thing just reinforces that we are actually allies in a greater fight.
My sincere condolences to those affected by the attack.
I just looked at that typo and realized I didn't have to correct it; I didn't even have to consider whether to correct it. I don't miss having Petes around at all.
Lee: "Meanwhile, we've getting attacks on police in NYC for an entirely different reason, and an entirely different message is intended."
I just came across that story yesterday when there was a piece in a swedish paper on how a bunch of cops turned their backs to the NY mayor, De Blasio.
I know a little bit about the background but not enough to form an opinion.
Do any of ya'll yanks have more on that, and if so would you mind giving me a rundown of events so far and possibly a prediction going forward?
Lee: "I just looked at that typo and realized I didn't have to correct it"
It's just silly if we should begin to correct typos in a freakin' comment section, as long as the message we intended to relay is clear enough. In fact we shouldn't even feel a need to point them out.
There's not much history there to run down. The cops threw an illegal choke-hold on that fat guy selling untaxed cigarettes on the street (selling them by singles or a couple at a time); he died. The cops were cleared at a grand jury inquiry. There were demonstrations. After the grand jury came back in, in an attempt to calm the streets, the new mayor, de Blasio, made a speech in which he appealed for calm, in which he also said he understood why the people of the black neighborhoods were getting bent out of shape, said he'd had to give the ‘always keep your hands where the cops can see them, always keep your head down, don't look them in their eyes ‘cause they consider that to be a challenge, don't do anything to antagonize them’ speech to his own son (his wife's black--the kid's biracial--which means black to the cops in NYC). The police got bent about that, and later, after the two cops got shot, the cops present (for security one would think) very publicly and ostentatiously, turned their backs on de Blasio en mass when he came to the lectern to give a public statement to the press after the shooting.
They're claiming de Blasio was insufficiently supportive of the police force in general, or insufficiently supportive of the use of illegal choke-holds in particular, or of having ‘encouraged’ the cop killing in some manner, and on and on like that. It's politics takin’ on some nasty to feed the faithful.
As far a prediction going forward… The cops mostly voted for his opponent as de Blasio made cleaning up the NYPD one of his campaign themes and that didn't sound too good to too many of them. Right now they're not making arrests; they're not giving tickets; they're doing minimal policing if that in a general slowdown designed to show the city how much it needs them and doesn't need de Blasio.
I predict de Blasio will win in the end; he will break the undeclared strike--but maybe not.
I had read another article in NYT before and from the comments I understood that its readership was very critical of the cops. But I wasn't sure whether the commenters in NYT reflected the general opinion or not.
I also didn't really know how much de Blasio had done and what he had actually said for the cops to be so offended and pissed off.
I guess my general opinion in a matter such as this is that sure, the police can demonstrate against politicians if they feel they have a valid reason by for instance turning their backs to them. I think back turning is juvinile behaviour that will do little except inflame the situation further but I wouldn't say it's unacceptable.
But to protest by not doing their job properly would IMO be quite another story. I think I could go so far as to call that unacceptable.
"I think back turning is juvinile behaviour that will do little except inflame the situation further but I wouldn't say it's unacceptable."
I believe the police are demonstrating how little regard they give to the complaints of those doing their complaining in the streets. I don't think the cops fully understand the depths of the sentiment inflamed by that film clip of them piling on Eric Garner prior to his death. This is not good. De Blasio's comments were actually fairly mild in my opinion. I also think this should be seen as the police union's first attempt to tarnish de Blasio prior to him taking any actions towards reform that would tamper with the perks established by and for those persons running the police union. If they can somehow label de Blasio as a public enemy then resisting the changes he intended to sponsor will become easier. If all they can do is convince the rank and file members of the police union that de Blasio is hostile to the police and ‘soft on crime’ then they at least strengthen their hands for that moment when they decide to call a real strike. In the meantime--strike's actually on and the cops are still getting their paychecks anyway. Winning move for now for the leaders of the police union, or so they see it.
Put another way… The police union had already decided they were going to have problems with de Blasio. If they didn't have problems with him, they were going to make some. This looks to them like the most favorable ground around on which to mount their first assault. I think they're making a mistake with that. The police department's relationships with the minority communities in New York are rather more important to the continued good fortunes of the policemen themselves than is any temporary tactical advantage they may get by firing their union members just prior to some labor/management brawls. Some members of the black community in particular are starting to take direct action. That's a bigger problem for the police than is de Blasio's supposed ‘anti-police’ bias.
And, here is an alternate point of view. To be right honest… He doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me; somehow he never quite wraps his explanation up; it just is ‘cause it is or something like that.
If you get a chance, read this argument written by the Police Commissioner defending Broken Windows policing. It's very long, but worth a read.
It sounds like the NY police are basically letting that strategy slide in protest. If their leadership isn't going to back them up when it is actually their policy, then why bother?
But it appears it is a strategy that has the support of a wide selection of communities. And, frankly, it does make sense.
What went wrong is that the officer or officers in the Garner case did a poor job, resulting in a man's death. It doesn't necessarily mean all police officers should be judged as wanting.
"But it appears it is a strategy that has the support of a wide selection of communities."
I've noticed a lot of white guys making that claim on behalf of black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Fewer black or Hispanic writers (or maybe none). ‘Fraid I'm not close enough to the action to know for myself.
I think they were referring to the idea of addressing smaller issues before they became larger ones. I doubt any overly aggressive tactics by police are welcome in any neighborhood.
I get the impression that a lot of young, male minority members find that being young, male and black or Hispanic is one of those ‘small issues’ that the police sometimes feel needs to be addressed.
And those young men are probably right, if they are of the demographic which is committing a lot of the crimes.
It is how that issue is addressed that is the problem. Outreach and containing petty crime is one thing, being tried, convicted and sentenced on the street is another. In the Garner case that line appears to have been crossed. Or so it seems to the general public.
But both the protesters and the police have valid concerns. The first want justice to be served and the second want some understanding of the difficult task that has been set for them.
"In the Garner case that line appears to have been crossed. Or so it seems to the general public."
The general public needs to get a clue. From the police perspective, they did nothing wrong here. They're simply the victims of unfortunate circumstance. There was no way to know, just by looking at him, that Garner was going to go into an asmhatic attack triggering a heart attack, and then corpse out on them. They do this all the time (they just don't do it to white folks who'll get lawyers and bring possibly successful brutality charges against them). From the protestors' point of view, the police did nothing unusual. They got caught on camera (getting a phone/cam out for recording cops can get ya charged with obstruction of justice or, at the very least, disturbing the peace, leading up to resisting arrest to explain the bruises ya get when they take the cell phone by force in many minority neighborhoods), which is unusual. And the guy died, which is unusual. But the treatment he received was the same as is meted out, day in and day out, in minority neighborhoods all across NYC. What the police actually did was not unusual.
"But the treatment he received was the same as is meted out, day in and day out, in minority neighborhoods all across NYC. What the police actually did was not unusual."
I checked it out on Youtube and to me it looks like a pretty standard procedure. Not sure about the choke hold but then it was a big guy they were trying to subdue.
But what I thought was weird was why they felt they needed to subdue him in the first place. He wasn't violent and from what I've gathered they had no serious allegations against him. He was just arguing and protesting a bit, he wasn't even screaming at them.
Still... if cops for some reasson want you to move on, sit down, shut up or even accept getting handcuffed - it's never a good idea to protest too much.
"But what I thought was weird was why they felt they needed to subdue him in the first place."
Eric Garner was a repeat offender. Usually the offense of selling untaxed cigarettes on the loose would be a ‘summons’ offense, meaning they'd give him a ticket and a court date on the ticket, and he could plead guilty by mail, simply call the court or look it up on the internet and they'd quote him the standard fine plus court costs for his offense, or he could wait and go to court that day and plead not guilty, and then they'd set a trial date. But, Garner already knew the standard fine and all the rest of it, probably was going to throw the ticket away instead. He was a repeat offender several times over. So, the cop decided to arrest him and take him in and make him either sit in jail or have to make bail on top of the fine for the petty criminal offense. Upping the ante so to speak on account of Garner was an incorrigible type. They'd already asked him nicely to surrender and come to the police car that was waiting for him, and he'd refused to cooperate. The video usually starts up about there--he's already been placed under arrest, and has refused to put his hands out for the handcuffs--you'll probably see him moving his hands away, and keeping his hands in motion, back and forth, as they attempt to grasp his wrists. He was a big guy; he could have been trouble and he was showing signs of being trouble that day already. So, they went physical on him.
My problem is how they cavalierly dismissed his pleas for help when he was already cuffed and down. He kept telling them he couldn't breath; they should have set him upright, at least let him sit up himself and try to get a breath of air, but they ignored his respiratory distress, and kept him pinned to the ground. That's where I get critical of their actions.
Oh, and the choke hold was definitely out-of-bounds by NYPD procedure. Call it not a choke hold if ya want, define it as something else instead, but, by whatever definition, it was definitely out-of-bounds by the NYPD rulebook (which does not use the words ‘choke hold’ to begin with, says things about ‘obstructing’ breathing or going for the neck, so playing definitional games there doesn't help the cop in question).
My problem is how they cavalierly dismissed his pleas for help when he was already cuffed and down. He kept telling them he couldn't breath; they should have set him upright, at least let him sit up himself and try to get a breath of air, but they ignored his respiratory distress, and kept him pinned to the ground. That's where I get critical of their actions.
I can't speak for the general public, but this is where I too become critical.
The problem here is that neither side have walked a mile in the other's shoes. For the most part that is. Obviously you have black or hispanic police officers who are quite aware on a personal level how those two communities feel.
It may be worth remembering that ISIS has issued directives on its English language websites telling would-be jihadi to not come to Syria/Iraq. They say they've got plenty ‘nuff westerners for cannon-fodder already, and are directing the wanna-be jihadi to stay home and attack at home. I presume these directives are going out in French and German and all the other languages in which they maintain websites and online magazines.
There seems to be some debate whether it's IS or AQ who are behind this, or a combination. Or perhaps rather which of those groups the terrorists saw themselves as belonging to. One of the brothers had apparenntly trained in Jemen, which suggests AQ-links. They had also been in Syria which could mean either group.
I read some speculation that those two groups are "competing" for primacy in Jihadi circles. They do seem to be competitors not least because they claim allegience to different leaders.
"There seems to be some debate whether it's IS or AQ who are behind this, or a combination."
I think that debate is probably an exercise in useless and unnecessary pigeonholing. Neither one were likely behind this. These guys were French born, French citizens of Muslim descent. This is homegrown French terrorism. They hit the Middle East for some more advanced training than they could find at home and maybe connections for weapons, but they bought their stuff locally when they got back to France. I don't think the boys cared who provided them links and training they sought out; they came to their own notions in their own sweet time anyway.
"Neither one were likely behind this. These guys were French born, French citizens of Muslim descent. This is homegrown French terrorism."
Possibly. But I read now that a french news outlet got phone contact with one of the terrorist brothers when they were surrounded and he claimed they were sent on the mission by AQ in Jemen. Might be hot air, trying to be part of a bigger thing, but it might be true. At least one of 'em had been training with AQ in Jemen according to security services.
"…and he claimed they were sent on the mission by AQ in Jemen."
I have no reason to doubt the reporting or the claim of being on a mission for al-Qaeda. But, they went looking for a jihad on their own, they made the decision to go down the jihadi road on their own, nobody got to them. It could have been either that they came upon first, or connected up with first. Of course, now that I think about it, that may have been the import of your question I guess--whom did they choose to connect up with once they'd chosen to go jihadi? Which organization suited their purposes best? Now that there's more than one party to choose to attend, maybe that does begin to make a difference.
That's Tex-Mex ya think? Sounds kinda Yankee imagination born of lasagna to me, although I'd not claim to be an authority on that. You run that claim by Bridgett maybe?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ I just got word that the Kouachi brothers were doing their ‘training’ in Yemen back in 2011, and waited until now to come out of the shadows (along with their black buddy and his wife, neither of whose names I bothered to remember). So, they've been playing sleeper for a good three years now, maybe four. Beginning to look maybe more relevant after all whether the locals are hookin’ up with ISIS or with al-Qaeda. I may have been premature in dismissing that as a particularly relevant question.
Also, it seems the vigilante hacking group known as ‘Anonymous’, has declared war on all jihadi groups, ISIS and al-Qaeda specifically included, and is threatening to shut down their websites all over the world for the foreseeable future, including locking up their ‘social media’ web connections via third party hosts. CNN Think this might turn out to be a rather valuable service to the world from those guys, finally.
That's Tex-Mex ya think? Sounds kinda Yankee imagination born of lasagna to me, although I'd not claim to be an authority on that. You run that claim by Bridgett maybe?
It didn't really come with a name. I just added that because it came from my cousin in Texas. And, yes, it reminded me of lasagna too. Anyway, I liked it. :)
Last I heard the Kouachi brothers claimed to be working for Al-Qaida and the other two claimed to be were working for ISIS. If this is the case then it would mean a level of cooperation that would be at odds with the supposed discord between the two.
After some reflection it doesn't seem that odd for Anonymous to be setting up in opposition to AQ & ISIL. They are supposedly pro free speech and this attack went straight to the heart of that.
Maybe it is a Texan tryin’ to do lasgane then. However, that works…
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion of a hacker group declaring war on a jihadi group, and a paranoid nation/state declaring war on a private Japanese corporation, and maybe the corporation having declared war back (those DoS attacks that took out North Korean internet last week were probably not from the CIA or NSA or anybody with the American Federal government). Getting so's we're gonna need to keep a program/scorecard to keep up with who's all the players in these new wars.
Maybe it is a Texan tryin’ to do lasgane then. However, that works…
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion of a hacker group declaring war on a jihadi group, and a paranoid nation/state declaring war on a private Japanese corporation, and maybe the corporation having declared war back (those DoS attacks that took out North Korean internet last week were probably not from the CIA or NSA or anybody with the American Federal government). Getting so's we're gonna need to keep a program/scorecard to keep up with who's all the players in these new wars.
(those DoS attacks that took out North Korean internet last week were probably not from the CIA or NSA or anybody with the American Federal government).
Nah, probably not. They seem far too conservative to do something like that. The guy who guessed the 15 year old in his mom's basement was probably closer to the mark.
86 comments:
Lee,
I am moving this discussion up here since the other comments section has flipped past the 200 comments limit.
So, if you think he's actually got something valuable going on here, then by all means, come out in his defense and support. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
PeteS would be better suited to argue his hypothesis than I would. But it is an interesting subject and it would be nice to see an argument made without any ruffles and flourishes. :)
Given the spherical nature of the Earth and that light curves when refracted I was wondering if that would cause the asymetric effect that Pete described? That is refraction moving in an apparent sideways nature when viewed from a point on Earth?
As you know I am very very rusty when it cones to trig. So does Pete's formula work?
Now I am off to fondle some reading material for a bit. I did manage to de-Christmas the living room this morning. :)
"PeteS would be better suited to argue his hypothesis than I would."
Maybe not, but we're not likely to see any progress if we discuss Petes and his suitabilities. So… Moving right along…
"Given the spherical nature of the Earth and that light curves when refracted I
was wondering if that would cause the asymetric effect that Pete described? That
is refraction moving in an apparent sideways nature when viewed from a point on
Earth?"
For an instant I thought you had it, you were on top of it, and then I got to the second sentence, so I had to go back to the first sentence and re-read that, and then I realized that I'd lead you astray with that piece of information about how the the light curves down through the atmosphere rather than ‘bending’ at any particular, specific point. So, if interpret your question correctly, the short answer is ‘no’, the refraction is made in a long curve rather than a sudden bend, but it still curves down by pretty much the same distance down that it would drop if it were experiencing a sudden bend instead. The total distance down is pretty much the same (probably not exactly, but close ‘nuff for our purposes, close ‘nuff that Petes could use a bend rather than a curve for his diagram and I didn't object.)
"As you know I am very very rusty when it cones to trig. So does Pete's formula
work?"
Well, that depends on what you mean by ‘work’. It calculates five sixths of the tangent for the angle θ, assuming we imply the missing multiplication sign and the missing equal sign and the missing character for the variable being calculated. But 5×(sinθ)/6 = ? calculates five sixths of the sine of the angle theta, and 5×(cosθ)/6 = ? calculates five sixths of the cosine of the angle theta. They all ‘work’ if you mean that there's no reason one can't do the calculation, there's no dividing by zero or anything else that'll toss a calculator into a frenzy. But, ‘3 + 3 = ?’ also ‘works’ to that extent. However, ‘work’ might also imply that it does something, does some work (used as a noun this time not as a verb). Then the question is, what does it do? Start out with… What is the value for theta? How do we figure out what theta is in the first place? And what do we get out of doing the calculation once we've settled on theta?
Post Script:
"The total distance down is pretty much the same…"
And it still bends down, not sideways.
Doing research....:)
Happy new year!
Let's hope we get to see some wars simmer out or even stop this year and no new ones started.
"Doing research....:)"
Oh crap! If you're doing research then let me re-write Petes' math expression for you so that it's readable and workable, not intentionally written to confuse people rather than enlighten them.
Try this one instead… ‘(tanθ) × 5/6 = ?’. What's theta? (We'll get to the five sixths (5/6) part fairly quickly after that,)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Let's hope we get to see some wars simmer out or even stop this year and
no new ones started."
That would be good. Raising a mug here to the ‘no more war’ notion.
Agreed, Marcus!
Lee,
I will write my comment without the math at first, I think. I tend to use that method to think through problems. But I will have to get to it later as I am at work right now.
Just stopped in real quick to let you know that I paid $1.849 for gas this morning at Costco. :)
Well, I'll do my best to try and follow it, with or without math first. I'll check back later.
Lee,
This is what I understand Pete to be saying. (I may not be as technical in my terms as he was.) I will let him know what I am arguing so that he may correct me if I am wrong. I am going to review the basics for a start to get everything clear in my mind.
As a person stands at the equator and looks to the east he/she will see the sun rising vertically. If that person moves further north their view of the sun is at an angle or "slant".
The Earth is orbiting the sun with its axis in a tilted position. As the Earth revolves around the sun the tilt of the axis goes from an extreme position pointed towards the sun, which is the summer solstice, to an extreme position pointed away from the sun, which is the winter solstice. Because of the axial tilt the position of sunrise on the horizon, or azimuth, changes as the Earth orbits the sun.
Atmospheric refraction causes objects to appear higher than their actual location.
Because of the "slanted" view of the sun's path and the apparently higher position of the sun caused by refraction, we see the sun rise earlier and further north than its actual location. This is what is causing the variance Pete noticed.
Yeah, I know you already know the info behind the links, but I wanted to add a little color and interest to my comment. :)
So far we're on the same page. I follow all of that; I even agree with that. Refraction will cause the sun to appear earlier than the moment when it actually crosses the horizon (and therefore side-shifted some).
The question is: How much earlier? How much side-shift does that account for. I first said it was under 30’ (I did a rough run-through of the objects in my head and got a rough estimate, which came in at less than 30’ (half a degree--½°).) That would round down and have no effect on the final (rounded to degrees) results posted at timeanddate.com. But, I was wrong about that, it comes to 34’, just barely over half a degree, so it will affect the final result, but not nearly enough to itself account for the sun being 1½° ‘north of east’ at the equitorial equinox.
The not so far acounted for shift of the sunrise north is 90' (1½°) minus 34' (the standard refractive shift of the sun, which we got from Wiki and Petes was more than willing to accept up ‘til now). 90 - 34 = 56. 56’ is the minimum, so far unaccounted for, shift to the north. It might be as high as 70’ (Figure 105‘ would round up to 2° (120') and 104' would round down to 1½° (90')).
How do we account for the rest, that part that's somewhere between or including 56’ and 70’?
So, what's theta?
I should do my math ahead of time instead of while I'm typing. Minimum is 41’ unaccounted for (34’ + 41’ = 75’ which would round up to 1½° = 90’).
So, what's theta?
Theta, as labeled by Petes, is equal to latitude.
As we move farther north the slant increases.
Gotta run, must do errands and de-Christmas the outside of the house while it is still warm. :) We are heading into the deep freeze up here....
"Theta, as labeled by Petes, is equal to latitude."
So far, so good.
Latitude, at Dublin, is 53° (and 21’ minutes if I remember it right from Wiki's list, but we've been rounding it down to 53° from the beginning.) At winter solstice the latitude, at Dublin remains still 53°; latitude in Dublin is always at 53° latitude.
However, sunrise today was 129°. That's 39° ‘south of east’ and sunset is 39° ‘south of west’. I checked his chosen authority.
5×tan(θ)/6 still comes out to exactly the same number it was before, but the sunrise is now 39° off of east, not 1½° off (not that his result is 1½° in the first place, it was, in fact, .77401⅔.)
We seem to be missing some necessary calculations to explain today's readings. Eight characters hasn't gotten us anything useful past the date of the equinox.
Using the formula I get a number of .83333 or 5/6 for Minneapolis. Don't know how that converts to degrees. Will ask Petes about it.
Weather is turning here. We're starting to get some wind. It sounds like it's really blowing out in western MN, and snowing. Good night to hibernate and ruminate about math. lol!
Ooops, to clarify. That's the distance between actual sunrise and apparent sunrise on the horizon, caused by refraction.
Got it, clarified. Petes will probably tell you to use seven twelves 7/12 instead of 5/6.
"Don't know how that converts to degrees."
Magic incantations on account of he's already run it to nine characters starting out and it ain't there yet. (I think the magic has to do with calculating in radians and they magically convert themselves into degrees because that's what he needs to happen--he's been working this pretty hard)
I think we're real close knowing what each of us know. I'll give you a link and an explanation here soon and see if we can't cut some of this short and get to the end fairly soon.
Truth is, the total side-shift attributable to diffraction is 16' (16 arcminutes), not 34' (34' is the total vertical shift), but I didn't want to swap in a new number I hadn't sprung on Petes yet. Now that we're getting to the end, that's not so important.
I'll be back, tomorrow I hope.
I had a thought pestering me as I tried to wander away to other things.
"That's the distance between actual sunrise and apparent sunrise on the
horizon, caused by…"
I thought your original question was about whether or not the 3° ‘discrepancy’ occurred everywhere? I'm pretty sure I didn't break down and point out that the sunrise wasn't actually asymetric (it is centered, just centered in a different place than you thought) until several day later.
I had a thought pestering me as I tried to wander away to other things.
"That's the distance between actual sunrise and apparent sunrise on the
horizon, caused by…"
I thought your original question was about whether or not the 3° ‘discrepancy’ occurred everywhere? I'm pretty sure I didn't break down and point out that the sunrise wasn't actually asymetric (it is centered, just centered in a different place than you thought) until several day later.
Oh, no, I think Petes just asked in his post if the discrepancy was the same at our latitudes.
My question was always what caused the discrepancy.
The 5/6 in the equation is the factor for vertical refraction.
Midnight pee and I checked and found this:
"The 5/6 in the equation is the factor for vertical refraction."
That's the factor for verticle ‘displacement’. Which is larger than merely the ‘refraction’. The displacement is 50' (50 arcminutes), the refraction portion of that is only 34' (34arcminutes.) More on this later. Meantime:
"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."
Petes @ Sun Dec 28, 02:31:00 pm
(He's wrong about the need to take the half-diameter of the sun into account, we gotta deal with that too in order to explain the full ‘discrepancy’, but we'll get to that later. I hope to get to it today. But he did finally figure out the 5/12ths part.)
Well if nothing else I have come to understand a little better what you and Petes have been talking about!
I once told someone that I think better when I'm sleeping. lol! I have found that to be true with this puzzle as well. Maybe it has to do with the fact that during the day my mind is clogged up with all of the tasks I have to do that I have no time to think about much else.
Petes is using a right triangle to illustrate the view of sunrise looking east.
Scroll down to where this link talks about the hypotenuse, flip the triangle upside down and Point C becomes apparent sunrise and point B becomes actual sunrise. Side AB is the actual path of the sun. Draw a line paralleling AB running through point C and that is the path of the sun due to refraction. Angle A is theta.
Okay, so when I use 7/12 instead of 5/6 I get a value of .58333 for latitude 45 °, which is Minneapolis and a value of .7741094 for a latitude of 53°, which is Dublin. I think you had worked that out in an earlier comment.
Haven't seen Petes today and I've got chores so I'm off for now...
"Petes is using a right triangle to illustrate the view of sunrise looking
east."
That's the usual way to do it.
Let's start out with a new bit of information that Petes has failed to consider, or even seemingly to comprehend.
The variance ‘north of east’ is 1½° in Dublin only on the equinox. The break from where the sunrise appears, and where it ‘should’ appear absent a parallax shift, is 1½° at equinox (generally I will be referring to the equitorial equinox), rising to 18½° at solstice, and 4½° of that latter number figures by working with ‘refraction’. The other 14° of variation from equitorial readings on the same day are all about entirely other things.
By solstice the specific side-shift that Petes is now trying to get to somehow figure up in something at least approaching eight characters (having abandoned all hope of actually hitting his target), that's 4½° in Dublin, the angle associated with that much shift approaches 77° (23½° for the sun swinging that far south of the equator, to the Tropic of Capricorn, added to the 53+° for Dublin). This is nearabout the same reading that ya'd get in say, Grise Fiord, Canada at the equinox.
At the next equinox the side shift in Grise Fiord, Canada will be about 4½° which is what Dublin experienced just a week or so ago. At the summer solstice after the next equinox the relevant angle will be just under 20° in Dublin (53+°minus the 23.5° from the the Tropic of Cancer, at which Tropic of Cancer the sun will be dead set due east at sunrise, then on south to the equator where the sun will not be.)
Simply put, the angle one has to find to start this calculation out is the angle between the spot on the planet where the sun actually rises from dead set due east that morning. That'll be somewhere between the Tropic of Capricorn or the Tropic of Cancer, cycling back and forth between the two, and it will be at the equator on only two specific days per year. That means latitude won't work as your variable except on those two specific days a year popularly known as the equinox. The side-shift drops to 0° in Dublin on the 18th/19th of March (local equinox--a couple of days before the official equatorial equinox; I think local equinox strikes overnight in Dublin on that day.)
(the rest to follow)
Now, on to the refraction itself. It would be perhaps good to study on the yellow suns in the diagram down low on this Wiki page. As you can maybe figure from the diagram for yourself, the total amount of possible side-shift just from ‘refraction’ tops out at 16’, half the diameter of the sun. The reason you think the refraction creates side-shift is because the ‘slant’ either increases or decreases the apparent effect of the refraction by sliding the 16’s of refraction amount forward or backwards--change the slant, and the amount of side-shift changes. The actual amount of refraction, however, remains exactly the same both times.
I sent you an e-mail with an attachment, a bmp file with some additions on it to make this perhaps easier to grasp. The amount of refraction never changes (other than with atmospheric conditions, weather, that we've been ignoring for our purposes, and so I'll continue to ignore it) The slant changes; so does the side-shift. It's the slant that's causing most of the side-shift at equinox at Dublin's latitude, and all of the change in the side-shift as it increases or decreases, not something to do with the refraction itself. The refraction itself never increases nor decreases.
So, how does the ‘slant’ change? The equator is fixed and permanent relative to the sun; the latitude is also fixed and permanent relative to both the equator and the sun. (Call this angle the ‘slope’ maybe.) So, how do we get the changes if the equator, the latitude, and the refraction are all three fixed and permanent? The north pole swings around and around is how. (Maybe, just maybe, Petes should have given in and let you call that ‘wobble’, as was your first inclination. I'm not sure there's really a better term to use among us common folks. Or, maybe there is, maybe ‘slant’ is a better term for these two-dimensional representations than is ‘wobble’ (although the movement occurs in a three-dimensional real world, and on a sphere to boot--so ‘wobble’ is probably a better term actually) either case, I'll describe a simple demonstration for you later, might help you get your head around the ideas in play here.)¹
(the rest to follow)
Anyway…
As the North Pole swings around and around, also the Dublin horizon moves around, (some less than at the poles but it still moves around), it's changing angle against the sun. The horizon that rocks back and forth relative to the sun--the sun is at 53° ‘slant’, i.e. 37° ‘south of east’ in Dublin at sunrise on that one day, but only on that one day (well, two days). The ‘slope’ remains at 53° all year round--latitude, ‘angle of ascention’ both measure off of this angle. It's the ‘slant’ that changes; and it slowly works the refraction up over the slope, but all the movement, all the change is vertical; refraction always bends down not sideways. So, Petes' little math expression (can't quite call it an equation yet) doesn't ‘work’ to explain the side-shift except on those particular two days of the year when the slope and the slant catch up with each other (equinox).
So, now, the question is: How much of this did you catch the first go-‘round. I never claimed I was a good teacher. I may have to do this again, and we will have to hope I do it better next time.
Couple of things Petes might learn from all this though, there's more to trigonometry than just learning how to spell it and then spelling it as often as he thinks he can work it in; it helps to actually understand how it works; and I don't get impressed with, nor feel threatened by, his regular forays into empty, sometimes random jargon-babble.
¹ Demonstration (experiment) as follows:
―――――――――――――――
1. need a generally flat surface, a ruler or a book or even just your hand held out flat.
2. need a light source--computer screen will work.
Hold the flat surface at an angle to the light source--slanted down left-to-right or right-to-left, depending on which hand you use. (Like the refraction demonstration.) Edge on to the light (edge to you), between you and the light.
Holding that angle constant, rock the flat surface towards the light and then away. The left-to-right or right-to-left angle remains constant (if you're doing this right)--that's the ‘angle of ascent’ Petes mentioned--that's also the latitude; that's the slope. The other angle changes; we've been calling that ‘the slant’. That's the angle that matters. It probably has a name. I don't know what that is off the top of my head. Neither does Petes--he's still figuring out that he just got his college astro-whatever educated ass clocked by a hillbilly, again.
And, 53 - 23 is about 30 not 20. Gotta stop doing math in my head while I'm typing, but I keep thinking it'll work out right.
[Lynnette]: Petes is using a right triangle to illustrate the view of sunrise looking east.
[Lee]: That's the usual way to do it.
I'm glad that you and Petes can agree on something. :)
[Lee]: The variance ‘north of east’ is 1½° in Dublin only on the equinox.
Er...I'm not seeing that at all, Lee. I will use timeanddate.com as reference for dates and Dublin as the location. On the spring equinox on March 20 the sun rises at 89° and on the autumnal equinox the sun rises at 89°, meaning there is no discrepancy. It is the summer solstice of June 21 where the sun rises at 47° and the winter solstice where the sun rises at 130° where we are discussing a discrepancy.
Yes it is understood that the factor for refraction remains the same.
The 5/6 in Petes' formula is made up of the refraction factor and half the diameter of the sun. So the calculated figures of 1.12 for Dublin and .8333 for Mpls. are correct.
My question for Petes was why those numbers would be different if the discrepancy between the dates of the solstices was the same for both locations. The answer was rounding:
Apparent sunrise at summer solstice for Dublin: 47 - 1.12 = 45.88
Apparent sunrise at summer solstice for Dublin rounded: 46
Apparent sunrise at winter solstice for Dublin: 130 - 1.12 = 128.88
Apparent sunrise at winter solstice for Dublin rounded: 129
Apparent sunrise at summer solstice for Mps: 47 - .8333 = 46.1667
Apparent sunrise at summer solstice for Mpls rounded: 46
Apparent sunrise at winter solstice for Mps: 130 - .8333 = 129.1667
Apparent sunrise at winter solstice for Mpls rounded: 129
As you can see the numbers, once rounded, end up being the same. So the difference in the figures I calculated, 1.12 and .8333 is irrelevant with regard to the discrepancy.
Timeanddate.com also rounds its figures. The more numbers in your calculation that are rounded, the less exact you will be.
As for this:
Simply put, the angle one has to find to start this calculation out is the angle between the spot on the planet where the sun actually rises from dead set due east that morning. That'll be somewhere between the Tropic of Capricorn or the Tropic of Cancer, cycling back and forth between the two, and it will be at the equator on only two specific days per year. That means latitude won't work as your variable except on those two specific days a year popularly known as the equinox.
That's something for Petes to chew over if he's got the time. :)
And now...Downton Abbey is about to come on, and I can't miss that! So I'm off for the night. ;)
"On the spring equinox on March 20 the sun rises at 89° and on the autumnal equinox the sun rises at 89°,
meaning there is no discrepancy."
It was the same last year. Check for March 20 and September 23 of 2014.
(The variation in autumnal dates is probably due to the elliptical nature of earth's orbit, the year beginning date of 1 January doesn't match up cleanly with the ellipsis in Earth's orbit--damned inconsiderate of the ancient astronomers in my opinion not to get with whomever determined the New Year's date--that's my first guess anyway--or it may be the leap year building up on us. I'd have to do some tedious calculations or furiously googling to determine which is behind it, or if there's another variable there, but the dates of the actual as opposed to calculated equinoxes are known to vary. My local weatherman mentions it damn near every year come time to announce the equinox--it's a thing of his.) The difference between the two 1° calculations given for the two dates, and the 3° combined total at the extremes is, as Petes said, almost certainly due to rounding.
Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think the extremes of the ellipsis match up perfectly with the extreme outside edges of the tilt--so this may be God's fault rather than the ancient astronomer's fault.
"So the calculated figures of 1.12 for Dublin and .8333 for Mpls. are correct."
They are correct for the total displacement. You said you wanted to know about the displacement on account of refraction.
"The 5/6 in the equation is the factor for vertical refraction."
Lynnette @ Sun Jan 04, 12:13:00 am
It's the total displacement that's 5/6ths, only 34' out of the 50' is from refraction. The other 16' is from changing between the center of the sun (to do the calculations) and the edge of the sun (to do the measurements).
A song link for you Petes.
It's a black is kind of day today. Lots of accidents.
An issue that hasn't been talked about too much. Just what happens to foreign nationals fighting in Iraq for ISIL if they are captured by coalition forces?
"Just what happens to foreign nationals fighting in Iraq for ISIL if
they are captured by coalition forces?"
Kinda depends on how foreign they happen to be. We captured a kid fighting for the Taliban, and he got it down to 20 years for a guilty plea. The State Department and the Justice Department are both taking the position that they've got treason cases, and the death penalty is authorized by the Constitution. The French have intercepted and jailed at least a couple of would be returnees, don't know if their legal status has been ultimately decided yet. The Brits have a policy that it's a criminal offense, Germans have picked up a few and they're awaiting trial too.
I believe most of the rest of Europe is hoping to not make news, or make waves--basically hoping to not attract too much attention from ISIS.
That's all assuming they are not turned over to Iraqi authorities. In our case without our troops participating in ground activities, except in an advisory capacity, we would have little say in the disposition of prisoners captured in battle. Unless, of course, some agreement has been reached in this situation. I don't know if that is the case or not. So, as with the Australians, we could end up with someone from the US who has been fighting for ISIL subject to Iraqi laws and justice.
"…we could end up with someone from the US who has
been fighting for ISIL subject to Iraqi laws and justice."
I'm fine with that, so long as we retain the option of prosecuting them should the Iraqi decide to let them go instead of hanging them.
Probably most people would agree with you. I suppose it is not something the average 20 something who is looking to make some kind of mark for himself/herself is overly concerned with though. They think they are invincible.
Did you see the news this morning about the terror attack on the newspaper in France? Twelve people killed, including the editor. It's a direct challenge to free speech. Starts to get that "Don't Tread on Me" feeling going all over again...
We may not always agree with the French, but this kind of thing just reinforces that we are actually allies in a greater fight.
My sincere condolences to those affected by the attack.
"Did you see the news this morning about the terror
attack on the newspaper in France?"
A rather bloodier attack overnight in Yemen at a police academy.
Same sort of culprits it seems, in both Paris and Saana.
I hadn't heard about Yemen. CNN seems to be fixated on France. I will have to look it up...
Looks like the attacker in Yemen copied the tactics used in Iraq during the insurgency, and more recently as well.
Very difficult to fight against when your goal is to keep freedom of movement for the general populace.
Didn't just copy tactics. There's a similarity in targets as well. How many times have Iraqi police academy graduation ceremonies been hit?
Yup. They're also sending a message. Don't apply for this job.
Meanwhile, we've getting attacks on police in NYC for an entirely different reason, and an entirely different message is intended.
I just looked at that typo and realized I didn't have to correct it; I didn't even have to consider whether to correct it. I don't miss having Petes around at all.
Lee: "Meanwhile, we've getting attacks on police in NYC for an entirely different reason, and an entirely different message is intended."
I just came across that story yesterday when there was a piece in a swedish paper on how a bunch of cops turned their backs to the NY mayor, De Blasio.
I know a little bit about the background but not enough to form an opinion.
Do any of ya'll yanks have more on that, and if so would you mind giving me a rundown of events so far and possibly a prediction going forward?
Lee: "I just looked at that typo and realized I didn't have to correct it"
It's just silly if we should begin to correct typos in a freakin' comment section, as long as the message we intended to relay is clear enough. In fact we shouldn't even feel a need to point them out.
There's not much history there to run down. The cops threw an illegal choke-hold on that fat guy selling untaxed cigarettes on the street (selling them by singles or a couple at a time); he died. The cops were cleared at a grand jury inquiry. There were demonstrations. After the grand jury came back in, in an attempt to calm the streets, the new mayor, de Blasio, made a speech in which he appealed for calm, in which he also said he understood why the people of the black neighborhoods were getting bent out of shape, said he'd had to give the ‘always keep your hands where the cops can see them, always keep your head down, don't look them in their eyes ‘cause they consider that to be a challenge, don't do anything to antagonize them’ speech to his own son (his wife's black--the kid's biracial--which means black to the cops in NYC). The police got bent about that, and later, after the two cops got shot, the cops present (for security one would think) very publicly and ostentatiously, turned their backs on de Blasio en mass when he came to the lectern to give a public statement to the press after the shooting.
They're claiming de Blasio was insufficiently supportive of the police force in general, or insufficiently supportive of the use of illegal choke-holds in particular, or of having ‘encouraged’ the cop killing in some manner, and on and on like that. It's politics takin’ on some nasty to feed the faithful.
As far a prediction going forward… The cops mostly voted for his opponent as de Blasio made cleaning up the NYPD one of his campaign themes and that didn't sound too good to too many of them. Right now they're not making arrests; they're not giving tickets; they're doing minimal policing if that in a general slowdown designed to show the city how much it needs them and doesn't need de Blasio.
I predict de Blasio will win in the end; he will break the undeclared strike--but maybe not.
New York Times editorial on the subject.
I had read another article in NYT before and from the comments I understood that its readership was very critical of the cops. But I wasn't sure whether the commenters in NYT reflected the general opinion or not.
I also didn't really know how much de Blasio had done and what he had actually said for the cops to be so offended and pissed off.
I guess my general opinion in a matter such as this is that sure, the police can demonstrate against politicians if they feel they have a valid reason by for instance turning their backs to them. I think back turning is juvinile behaviour that will do little except inflame the situation further but I wouldn't say it's unacceptable.
But to protest by not doing their job properly would IMO be quite another story. I think I could go so far as to call that unacceptable.
"I think back turning is juvinile behaviour that will do little
except inflame the situation further but I wouldn't say it's
unacceptable."
I believe the police are demonstrating how little regard they give to the complaints of those doing their complaining in the streets. I don't think the cops fully understand the depths of the sentiment inflamed by that film clip of them piling on Eric Garner prior to his death. This is not good.
De Blasio's comments were actually fairly mild in my opinion.
I also think this should be seen as the police union's first attempt to tarnish de Blasio prior to him taking any actions towards reform that would tamper with the perks established by and for those persons running the police union. If they can somehow label de Blasio as a public enemy then resisting the changes he intended to sponsor will become easier. If all they can do is convince the rank and file members of the police union that de Blasio is hostile to the police and ‘soft on crime’ then they at least strengthen their hands for that moment when they decide to call a real strike. In the meantime--strike's actually on and the cops are still getting their paychecks anyway. Winning move for now for the leaders of the police union, or so they see it.
Put another way… The police union had already decided they were going to have problems with de Blasio. If they didn't have problems with him, they were going to make some. This looks to them like the most favorable ground around on which to mount their first assault. I think they're making a mistake with that. The police department's relationships with the minority communities in New York are rather more important to the continued good fortunes of the policemen themselves than is any temporary tactical advantage they may get by firing their union members just prior to some labor/management brawls.
Some members of the black community in particular are starting to take direct action. That's a bigger problem for the police than is de Blasio's supposed ‘anti-police’ bias.
This one might be misunderstood so I'll fix it:
"…any temporary tactical advantage they may get by
firing up their union members just prior to some
labor/management brawls."
And, here is an alternate point of view. To be right honest… He doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me; somehow he never quite wraps his explanation up; it just is ‘cause it is or something like that.
Interesting comments Lee. I'm still too far away from it to form an opinion of my own but I'm a bit more clued in now.
If you get a chance, read this argument written by the Police Commissioner defending Broken Windows policing. It's very long, but worth a read.
It sounds like the NY police are basically letting that strategy slide in protest. If their leadership isn't going to back them up when it is actually their policy, then why bother?
But it appears it is a strategy that has the support of a wide selection of communities. And, frankly, it does make sense.
What went wrong is that the officer or officers in the Garner case did a poor job, resulting in a man's death. It doesn't necessarily mean all police officers should be judged as wanting.
"But it appears it is a strategy that has the support of
a wide selection of communities."
I've noticed a lot of white guys making that claim on behalf of black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Fewer black or Hispanic writers (or maybe none). ‘Fraid I'm not close enough to the action to know for myself.
I think they were referring to the idea of addressing smaller issues before they became larger ones. I doubt any overly aggressive tactics by police are welcome in any neighborhood.
I get the impression that a lot of young, male minority members find that being young, male and black or Hispanic is one of those ‘small issues’ that the police sometimes feel needs to be addressed.
And those young men are probably right, if they are of the demographic which is committing a lot of the crimes.
It is how that issue is addressed that is the problem. Outreach and containing petty crime is one thing, being tried, convicted and sentenced on the street is another. In the Garner case that line appears to have been crossed. Or so it seems to the general public.
But both the protesters and the police have valid concerns. The first want justice to be served and the second want some understanding of the difficult task that has been set for them.
"In the Garner case that line appears to have been
crossed. Or so it seems to the general public."
The general public needs to get a clue.
From the police perspective, they did nothing wrong here. They're simply the victims of unfortunate circumstance. There was no way to know, just by looking at him, that Garner was going to go into an asmhatic attack triggering a heart attack, and then corpse out on them. They do this all the time (they just don't do it to white folks who'll get lawyers and bring possibly successful brutality charges against them).
From the protestors' point of view, the police did nothing unusual. They got caught on camera (getting a phone/cam out for recording cops can get ya charged with obstruction of justice or, at the very least, disturbing the peace, leading up to resisting arrest to explain the bruises ya get when they take the cell phone by force in many minority neighborhoods), which is unusual. And the guy died, which is unusual. But the treatment he received was the same as is meted out, day in and day out, in minority neighborhoods all across NYC. What the police actually did was not unusual.
"But the treatment he received was the same as is meted out, day in and day out, in minority neighborhoods all across NYC. What the police actually did was not unusual."
I checked it out on Youtube and to me it looks like a pretty standard procedure. Not sure about the choke hold but then it was a big guy they were trying to subdue.
But what I thought was weird was why they felt they needed to subdue him in the first place. He wasn't violent and from what I've gathered they had no serious allegations against him. He was just arguing and protesting a bit, he wasn't even screaming at them.
Still... if cops for some reasson want you to move on, sit down, shut up or even accept getting handcuffed - it's never a good idea to protest too much.
"But what I thought was weird was why they felt they needed
to subdue him in the first place."
Eric Garner was a repeat offender. Usually the offense of selling untaxed cigarettes on the loose would be a ‘summons’ offense, meaning they'd give him a ticket and a court date on the ticket, and he could plead guilty by mail, simply call the court or look it up on the internet and they'd quote him the standard fine plus court costs for his offense, or he could wait and go to court that day and plead not guilty, and then they'd set a trial date. But, Garner already knew the standard fine and all the rest of it, probably was going to throw the ticket away instead. He was a repeat offender several times over.
So, the cop decided to arrest him and take him in and make him either sit in jail or have to make bail on top of the fine for the petty criminal offense. Upping the ante so to speak on account of Garner was an incorrigible type.
They'd already asked him nicely to surrender and come to the police car that was waiting for him, and he'd refused to cooperate. The video usually starts up about there--he's already been placed under arrest, and has refused to put his hands out for the handcuffs--you'll probably see him moving his hands away, and keeping his hands in motion, back and forth, as they attempt to grasp his wrists.
He was a big guy; he could have been trouble and he was showing signs of being trouble that day already. So, they went physical on him.
My problem is how they cavalierly dismissed his pleas for help when he was already cuffed and down. He kept telling them he couldn't breath; they should have set him upright, at least let him sit up himself and try to get a breath of air, but they ignored his respiratory distress, and kept him pinned to the ground. That's where I get critical of their actions.
Oh, and the choke hold was definitely out-of-bounds by NYPD procedure. Call it not a choke hold if ya want, define it as something else instead, but, by whatever definition, it was definitely out-of-bounds by the NYPD rulebook (which does not use the words ‘choke hold’ to begin with, says things about ‘obstructing’ breathing or going for the neck, so playing definitional games there doesn't help the cop in question).
My problem is how they cavalierly dismissed his pleas for help when he was already cuffed and down. He kept telling them he couldn't breath; they should have set him upright, at least let him sit up himself and try to get a breath of air, but they ignored his respiratory distress, and kept him pinned to the ground. That's where I get critical of their actions.
I can't speak for the general public, but this is where I too become critical.
The problem here is that neither side have walked a mile in the other's shoes. For the most part that is. Obviously you have black or hispanic police officers who are quite aware on a personal level how those two communities feel.
Apparently there has been more than one situation developing in France in relation to the attack on Charlie Hebdo.
It may be worth remembering that ISIS has issued directives on its English language websites telling would-be jihadi to not come to Syria/Iraq. They say they've got plenty ‘nuff westerners for cannon-fodder already, and are directing the wanna-be jihadi to stay home and attack at home. I presume these directives are going out in French and German and all the other languages in which they maintain websites and online magazines.
There seems to be some debate whether it's IS or AQ who are behind this, or a combination. Or perhaps rather which of those groups the terrorists saw themselves as belonging to. One of the brothers had apparenntly trained in Jemen, which suggests AQ-links. They had also been in Syria which could mean either group.
I read some speculation that those two groups are "competing" for primacy in Jihadi circles. They do seem to be competitors not least because they claim allegience to different leaders.
"There seems to be some debate whether it's
IS or AQ who are behind this, or a combination."
I think that debate is probably an exercise in useless and unnecessary pigeonholing. Neither one were likely behind this. These guys were French born, French citizens of Muslim descent. This is homegrown French terrorism. They hit the Middle East for some more advanced training than they could find at home and maybe connections for weapons, but they bought their stuff locally when they got back to France. I don't think the boys cared who provided them links and training they sought out; they came to their own notions in their own sweet time anyway.
"Neither one were likely behind this. These guys were French born, French citizens of Muslim descent. This is homegrown French terrorism."
Possibly. But I read now that a french news outlet got phone contact with one of the terrorist brothers when they were surrounded and he claimed they were sent on the mission by AQ in Jemen. Might be hot air, trying to be part of a bigger thing, but it might be true. At least one of 'em had been training with AQ in Jemen according to security services.
Here's a piece about that:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-information-on-paris-terror-suspects/
"…and he claimed they were sent on the mission by AQ in Jemen."
I have no reason to doubt the reporting or the claim of being on a mission for al-Qaeda. But, they went looking for a jihad on their own, they made the decision to go down the jihadi road on their own, nobody got to them. It could have been either that they came upon first, or connected up with first. Of course, now that I think about it, that may have been the import of your question I guess--whom did they choose to connect up with once they'd chosen to go jihadi? Which organization suited their purposes best? Now that there's more than one party to choose to attend, maybe that does begin to make a difference.
Tex-Mex Hotdish recipe:
First brown off 1 & 1/2 lbs. of hamburger with 1 cup onion (or whatever meat you prefer).
Next mix together 1 can enchilada sauce (heat index to taste), 1 can green chilis, 1 can mushroom soup, 1 tsp. chili powder, 1 tsp. garlic powder
Shred 2 10 inch tortillas and layer on bottom of square pan.
Layer half of the hamburger mixture on top of shredded tortillas
Pour half of sauce over hamburger mixture
Shred 2 more tortillas and add a second layer
Repeat layers of hamburger & sauce
Sprinkle 1/2 package of sharp cheddar cheese on top
Bake at 350° for 30 minutes
Oops, that's cream of mushroom soup. :)
That's Tex-Mex ya think? Sounds kinda Yankee imagination born of lasagna to me, although I'd not claim to be an authority on that. You run that claim by Bridgett maybe?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I just got word that the Kouachi brothers were doing their ‘training’ in Yemen back in 2011, and waited until now to come out of the shadows (along with their black buddy and his wife, neither of whose names I bothered to remember). So, they've been playing sleeper for a good three years now, maybe four. Beginning to look maybe more relevant after all whether the locals are hookin’ up with ISIS or with al-Qaeda. I may have been premature in dismissing that as a particularly relevant question.
Also, it seems the vigilante hacking group known as ‘Anonymous’, has declared war on all jihadi groups, ISIS and al-Qaeda specifically included, and is threatening to shut down their websites all over the world for the foreseeable future, including locking up their ‘social media’ web connections via third party hosts. CNN Think this might turn out to be a rather valuable service to the world from those guys, finally.
That's Tex-Mex ya think? Sounds kinda Yankee imagination born of lasagna to me, although I'd not claim to be an authority on that. You run that claim by Bridgett maybe?
It didn't really come with a name. I just added that because it came from my cousin in Texas. And, yes, it reminded me of lasagna too. Anyway, I liked it. :)
Last I heard the Kouachi brothers claimed to be working for Al-Qaida and the other two claimed to be were working for ISIS. If this is the case then it would mean a level of cooperation that would be at odds with the supposed discord between the two.
After some reflection it doesn't seem that odd for Anonymous to be setting up in opposition to AQ & ISIL. They are supposedly pro free speech and this attack went straight to the heart of that.
"… it came from my cousin in Texas."
Maybe it is a Texan tryin’ to do lasgane then. However, that works…
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion of a hacker group declaring war on a jihadi group, and a paranoid nation/state declaring war on a private Japanese corporation, and maybe the corporation having declared war back (those DoS attacks that took out North Korean internet last week were probably not from the CIA or NSA or anybody with the American Federal government). Getting so's we're gonna need to keep a program/scorecard to keep up with who's all the players in these new wars.
"… it came from my cousin in Texas."
Maybe it is a Texan tryin’ to do lasgane then. However, that works…
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion of a hacker group declaring war on a jihadi group, and a paranoid nation/state declaring war on a private Japanese corporation, and maybe the corporation having declared war back (those DoS attacks that took out North Korean internet last week were probably not from the CIA or NSA or anybody with the American Federal government). Getting so's we're gonna need to keep a program/scorecard to keep up with who's all the players in these new wars.
(those DoS attacks that took out North Korean internet last week were probably not from the CIA or NSA or anybody with the American Federal government).
Nah, probably not. They seem far too conservative to do something like that. The guy who guessed the 15 year old in his mom's basement was probably closer to the mark.
Post a Comment