Here is a sequence of images taken of Uranus -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

The unique axial orientation of Uranus allows a person to discern that a planet does not keep its same orbital face to the Sun over a complete orbit and the Earth is no exception.

The magnificent orbital orientation of the Earth changes in accordance with Keplerian orbital geometry and can be quantified as an average of 68 miles per axial cycle.This changes causes the variations in the natural noon cycles and gives the Earth its hemispherical weather patterns (seasons).

A good astronomer should be capable of interpreting the images of Uranus correctly and determining how axial and orbital motions/orientations affect changes in daylight/darkness and meteorological patterns,it replaces the pseudo-dynamic of variable inclination to the Sun as the cause of the seasons

Moved from "Astronomy" to "Against the Mainstream," with a redirect.

So is there a real difference between your explanation and the mainstream explanation, or is your way just a different approach to the same phenomenon?

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

That is pretty much the mainstream idea.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

What is "axial cycle" and where do you get that figure of 68 miles per heaven only knows what?
Please clarify what you mean by that last phrase. Has anyone said any such thing in modern times?

Indeed Earth is "no exception". However, Uranus is an exception. It is the only planet which as its axis of rotation lying in the plane of its orbit, or nearly so (the obliquity of Uranus is 97.77 degrees). So the rings, which are in the equatorial plane of the planet, appear vertical compared to the orbit plane.

Still, Uranus has seasons, and for the same reason as does Earth, except that Uranus is an extreme case. When the north pole of Uranus points towards the sun, it is summer (and daytime) in the north of Uranus, and winter (and nighttime) in the south. And likewise when the south pole of Uranus points twards the sun. It's the same for Earth, except that the angle of the axis is less severe, although we do have a nighttime season at our poles too.

When Earth is oriented so that its axis is "parallel" to the sun's axis, so neither pole faces the sun, it is spring in one hemisphere, and fall in the other, depending on which pole is heading into summer or winter. It's likewise for Uranus. As the sun migrates from the north pole to the south pole, over the equator, the north pole migrates from summer to winter, and the south pole migrates from winter to summer. The equator has its winter whenever either pole is in the sun, and has its summer as the sun crosses the equator. So Uranus has seasons just like Earth, and they are a result of the orientation of the spin axis, also just like Earth.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

It is an entirely new approach which is founded on using contemporary imaging such as the sequence of images of Uranus,images of the Earth from space along with other observed effects such as the variations in natural noon cycle .It should constitute a non offensive approach but being mindful of the words of Pascal when taking a wider view of things -

* "People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others." Pascal

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

The advantage of the axial orientation of Uranus is that is shows clearly how a planet will change its orbital orientation to the Sun over a complete orbit.As the change in the orbital orientation of the Earth runs almost parallel with axial rotation,it is disregarded as an explanation for the seasons or rather,axial rotation is inclined to obliterate the changing relationship between change orbital and fixed axial orientation.


Not to venture too far down the inadequate variable inclination explanation or the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt,but no observation of the Earth from space supports that pseudo-dynamic where axial tilt pivoting off the Equator explains the seasons -

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/con...458/viewPage/3

The actual images from Solstice from Equinox may be disconcerting to look at first insofar as it shows the orbital shadow/solar radiation boundary pivoting off the Equator (due to images taken along the orbital path) but the motion is explained by applying the principles learned from the distant Uranus -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTrYVBcx9s

What you are looking at is the change in orbital orientation of the Earth against fixed axial orientation,it drops any change in axial orientation to the Sun/orbital plane and shifts it to an orbital component.This is why at the Equator no variations in inclination are seen while at the poles the variations are extreme.

The temptation to explain the seasons astronomically is a historical one,seasons are actually hemispherical weather patterns and are best explained as a subset of global climate and the oscillation of temperature bands due to the changing relationship between axial and orbital components -

http://www.climateprediction.net/ima...ges/annual.gif

I am also mindful that poor people suffer most from industrialised influences on climate therefore the usual slanging of right and wrong is put aside,as far as I am concerned,a wider view using modern imaging makes it easier to distinguish between the seasons and global climate using the motions of the Earth as a backdrop.

It is a very large modification to Copernican reasoning,much larger than the Keplerian refinement however it wil require an enormous amount of imaging data to fit all the components together into a productive working principles.Beyond that there is little more that can be done,it is certainly a question of familiarity and I am prepared to leave it for a while with that in mind.



* " When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others." Pascal,Pensees

Could you just tell us, clearly, what you think the standard explanation for the seasons is?
Because I do not recognize "pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt" or "axial tilt pivoting off the Equator" as resembling the standard explanation, which involves no change in axial inclination.
In fact, your own explanation, as far as I can understand it, seems to be identical to the standard explanation.

Grant Hutchison

The new approach dictated by observations relies on the change of orbital orientation against fixed axial orientation.The images from Uranus allows a person to use axial orientation to recognise that orbitally a location does not keep the same face to the Sun and apply the same principle to the Earth -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

My business is to demonstrate that modern imaging clearly shows that the Earth does not keep the same face to the Sun,this change in orbital orientation is responsible for the variations in the natural noon cycle and most other phenomena mentioned before.In exercising constraint ,given that the standard explanation keeps a location facing noon every 24 hours (in direct conflict with observations) ,I must rely on the aptitude of people who can glimpse the emergence of a better approach to global climate and the seasons via the motions of the Earth -

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/con...458/viewPage/1

No doubt,the change in orbital orientation against fixed axial orientation will eventually be assimilated as a consensus view and that is good,climate studies take on a whole new light with the ability to clearly distinguish seasons (hemispherical weather patterns) from global climate via the motions of the Earth for the first time

Second the motion.

To the OP: Do you understand that the Earth's axis of rotation points both northward and southward to fixed points in space? Winter and Summer, the North Pole points very close to Polaris, the last star in the handle of the Little Dipper. And the equator of the Sun, and the plane of revolution of the planets around the Sun, is not aligned with the equator of Earth. This is terribly elementary to be explaining on an astronomy site; perhaps you should visit a local planetarium, or natural history museum, or a few Wiki sites, or any good beginning astronomy book.

I am not looking to convince anyone that the change in orbital orientation against fixed axial orientation is responsible for the seasons and the natural variations in the length of the noon cycles.It would have be nice to meet somebody who can interpret the images of Uranus correctly for these purposes but unfortunately it does not appear to be the case.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

As you can actually see orbital orientation changing via images of the Earth from space (with allowances made for the images taken along the orbital path),replacing variable axial inclination,I have no further objections to raise -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTrYVBcx9s

So far as I can understand it, your "change in orbital orientation" is in fact the standard explanation for the seasons. I can see no difference at all between your explanation and the standard explanation. See post #5 in this thread.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

By "keep the same face", I assume you mean "tilt always in the same direction"? Because it's evident that we don't keep the same face to the sun, since we experience day and night.

Which observations are these? The noonday sun is due south of my location at 24 hour intervals, on average; our timekeeping contrives it to be so. If there were some mismatch, our 24-hour day by the clock would become progressively more misaligned with the sun.

Grant Hutchison

I also would like to see this - but with references, please. I wonder if oriel is seeing some non-mainstream material or is misinterpreting it.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Do you disagree with anything in Tim's post about Uranus? See here:

The Earth's orbital orientation

If you disagree, please specify your concerns. Or, if you think there needs to be more detail about some issue in interpreting the images, what is it?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

i wonder how he'd explain why there are different phases of the moon..

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

then there is precession.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

Grant wrote -

"By "keep the same face", I assume you mean "tilt always in the same direction"? Because it's evident that we don't keep the same face to the sun, since we experience day and night"

You require a knack to intepret the images of Uranus correctly but ultimately you can boil it down to a single insight and apply it to the Earth

The orbital motion of the Earth is an independent motion therefore it is not a hypothetical thing to set axial rotation and orientation aside and consider it seperately.A location does not keep the same face to the Sun (again.setting axial rotation aside) over the course of an annual orbit .

That is all

And that is exactly the standard explanation for the seasons. The tilt of the Earth's axis is unchanging, which makes the northern hemisphere lean towards the sun when the Earth is on one side of its orbit (northern summer, southern winter), and lean away when the Earth is on the other side of its orbit (northern winter, southern summer).

Grant Hutchison

As as been pointed out repeatedly, as far as you've explained it, this is the standard explanation. Here is a standard illustration:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rth_season.jpg

and here is a standard discussion of the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season#Causes_and_effects

Do you disagree with anything in that article? If so, please explain what, specifically, you disagree with.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

A sidereal day. Here's a page with a nice little discussion of the issue:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...mekeeping.html

An explanation would have been helpful, but a bit of googling turns up a "Kelleher" that also seems to be associated with an "Oreil." The poster seems to have an issue with sidereal time versus solar time. If this is the same poster, it appears discussion is pointless.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I didn't read anything outside of this thread, but I think I get it.

Oreil, if this is summer, with the O representing the sun, and the \ representing the axial tilt of the Earth, which of the following, A or B, would you say represents the mainstream view of the axial tilt for winter, and which represents what you propose?

O.............\= Summer
\..............O= A
/..............O= B

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

I do not know what the problem is,you extract the change in orbital orientation from the images of Uranus -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

You then apply the same principle to the Earth -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTrYVBcx9s

The cause of the seasons does not come from variable inclination to the Sun,the Earth's axial orientation is fixed,the change comes from the fact that a location does not orbitally keep the same face to the Sun.It is a new approach and if nobody is good enough to extract the relevent data from the images of Uranus or the time lapse footage of the Earth from space then there is little I can do about it.

There is no dynamic in axial tilt,a location does not lean towards and away from the Sun,the orbital orientation changes and it is crucial; to understand that this is what generates the variations in the natural noon cycle.Nobody should be offended unless they have a severe difficulty intepreting the sequence of images from Uranus where axial orientation remains fixed and orbital orientation changes with respect to the Sun.

There always is a difficulty when people fail to take a wider view and I do not hold it against anyone here.All innovators and those who affirm it face the same difficulty as a matter of course.The replacement of variable inclination with the new dynamic of changing orbital orientation alters the way climate studies are approached and before anyone tries to drag me into the Earth tilting this way and that,I am prepared to drop the matter in this forum . -

SALV. The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have
heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much
to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside
themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about
scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries. I have had some
experience of this myself.


SAGR." I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its
premises or establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should
have said discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a
conclusion which for them is already established and nailed down. No
good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent
that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous" Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems Galileo

No, it's not. It's a positively antique approach which has long been generally acknowledged as correct.
But kudos to you for having reasoned it out for yourself, since you seem to have been misled about the standard view, in some way I don't quite understand.

Grant Hutchison

Oriel, so far you have ignored my questions. Please read the following article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season#Causes_and_effects

Do you disagree with anything in that article? If so, please explain what, specifically, you disagree with.

Here is an illustration:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rth_season.jpg

What in that illustration do you disagree with? Please be specific.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Tog,

Oriel is in Australia (last I heard), so his summer = our winter.

He will write hundreds of posts about the cause of the seasons,
but will never actually explain the mechanism. He will lament that
our inability to understand the true cause, so obvious to him, shows
the sorry state of astronomy since the time of Copernicus.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

For more insight into oriel's postings, look at the postings of oriel36, his original user ID.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Of course, this is ATM, where, per the rules, folks that propose ATM arguments are expected to back them up and answer reasonable questions. That's why I asked for him to read a typical article about the mechanism for the seasons and to state specifically what he disagreed with.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Ah. I had been googling around and found oriel36 other places on the internet, but it appears this person was on BABB years ago (before I started). Here is the old ID:

http://www.bautforum.com/members/oriel36.html

Here is an example thread:

Rotation of the Earth in 24 hours

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Naturally. I was just saying that he has been asked this question
scores, perhaps hundreds of times, and has already written hundreds
of posts on the subject without ever answering the question. He will
reply at great length, but will always avoid answering. He could write
about the cause of the changing seasons for the next five years, but
he will not say what he believes the cause is.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves