The March Equinox 2012

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldcloc...omy.html?n=468

The South polar coordinate is now turning through the circle of
illumination and away from the Sun which will disappear for the next 6
months at those coordinates.In short,it is an orbital cycle and the
polar day/night cycle under consideration here where daily rotation
and its effects are set aside.

The distance turned by the coordinate from the time it enters the
circle of illumination/when the Sun disappears to the time it exits in
late September and the Sun re-appears defines the orbital traveling
axis around which these polar coordinates turn,In the Northern section
it would appear to be above North-Eastern Alaska.It is treating the
polar coordinates as arbitrary turning points to the central Sun and
ignoring the daily rotation of the planet that defines the North/South
orbital points which cause the Sun to set tomorrow at the South Pole
and rise at the North.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldcloc...omy.html?n=468

... cause the Sun to set tomorrow at the South Pole and rise at the North.

Actually, because of atmospheric refraction, the Sun rises at the North Pole a
few days before the equinox, and similarly sets at the South Pole a few days
after, being fully visible at both poles on the day of the equinox.

On Mar 20, 6:59*pm, "Gavino" wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldcloc...omy.html?n=468

... cause the Sun to set tomorrow at the South Pole and rise at the North.

Actually, because of atmospheric refraction, the Sun rises at the North Pole a
few days before the equinox, and similarly sets at the South Pole a few days
after, being fully visible at both poles on the day of the equinox.

You are fine.This type of modification which replaces a nondescript
'tilt'* with an additional orbital day/night cycle and its quasi-
rotational cause arising solely from the orbital behavior of the
planet would only appeal to astronomers and they have proven difficult
to find or don't exist at all.The orbital 'sunrise/sunset' at the
polar latitudes is a window into the orbital behavior of the planet so
we are dealing with large scale planetary dynamics and leave
refraction to those who generally can't raise themselves to the
discipline of Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.




* "An equinox occurs twice a year, when the tilt of the Earth's axis
is inclined neither away from nor towards the Sun, the center of the
Sun being in the same plane as the Earth's equator." Wikipedia

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:59:28 +0100, "Gavino"
wrote:
Actually, because of atmospheric refraction, the Sun rises at the
North Pole a
few days before the equinox, and similarly sets at the South Pole a
few days
after, being fully visible at both poles on the day of the equinox.

"A few days" is here approximately 1.5 days.

On Mar 20, 9:36*pm, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:59:28 +0100, "Gavino"

wrote:
Actually, because of atmospheric refraction, the Sun rises at the
North Pole a
few days before the equinox, and similarly sets at the South Pole a
few days
after, being fully visible at both poles on the day of the equinox.

"A few days" is here approximately 1.5 days.

Schlyter ,if you were any sort of a proper astronomer you would have
moved the orbital cycle towards our latitudes where it combine with
the daily rotational cycle to account for the variations in the
natural noon cycle.The trick is to separate the axis of rotation for
both cycle seeing that the North/South poles represent null daily
rotation yet turn around a traveling axis and cause polar day to turn
to polar night by turning through the circle of illumination and
either towards or away from the Sun.

oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 20, 9:36 pm, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:59:28 +0100, "Gavino"

wrote:
Actually, because of atmospheric refraction, the Sun rises at the
North Pole a
few days before the equinox, and similarly sets at the South Pole a
few days
after, being fully visible at both poles on the day of the equinox.

"A few days" is here approximately 1.5 days.

Schlyter ,if you were any sort of a proper astronomer you would have
moved the orbital cycle towards our latitudes where it combine with
the daily rotational cycle to account for the variations in the
natural noon cycle.The trick is to separate the axis of rotation for
both cycle seeing that the North/South poles represent null daily
rotation yet turn around a traveling axis and cause polar day to turn
to polar night by turning through the circle of illumination and
either towards or away from the Sun.

So what you are actually saying is this: Let's ignore the fact that the sun
is visible at both poles on the equinox because it invalidates Oriels
infantile theories

In article ,
"Gavino" wrote:

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldcloc...omy.html?n=468

... cause the Sun to set tomorrow at the South Pole and rise at the North.

Actually, because of atmospheric refraction, the Sun rises at the North Pole a
few days before the equinox, and similarly sets at the South Pole a few days
after, being fully visible at both poles on the day of the equinox.

Also because its upper limb rises earlier, and sets later, than its
geometric centre. Both effects are most pronounced at high latitudes.

--
Odysseus

On Mar 21, 8:07*am, Mike Collins wrote:

So what you are actually saying is this: Let's ignore the fact that the sun
is visible at both poles on the equinox because it invalidates Oriels
infantile theories

With all due respect to atmospheric refraction and its effects in many
areas,the immense and noble discipline of planetary dynamics focuses
attention of the polar coordinates turning through the circle of
illumination and into their respective orbital cycles of day or
night.While the observers for refraction are many,the audience for the
orbital dynamic are few.

Everything from the annual tidal cycles to the observed variations in
natural noon are contingent on knowing that the polar coordinates act
like a beacon into the orbital behavior of the planet,a particularly
21st century view which incorporates the emerging astronomy of
planetary comparisons.

oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:07 am, Mike Collins wrote:

So what you are actually saying is this: Let's ignore the fact that the sun
is visible at both poles on the equinox because it invalidates Oriels
infantile theories

With all due respect to atmospheric refraction and its effects in many
areas,the immense and noble discipline of planetary dynamics focuses
attention of the polar coordinates turning through the circle of
illumination and into their respective orbital cycles of day or
night.While the observers for refraction are many,the audience for the
orbital dynamic are few.

Everything from the annual tidal cycles to the observed variations in
natural noon are contingent on knowing that the polar coordinates act
like a beacon into the orbital behavior of the planet,a particularly
21st century view which incorporates the emerging astronomy of
planetary comparisons.

Let's try some planetary comparisons then,

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf071/sf071a06.htm
Describes the " hot poles" of mercury. Mercury's sidereal day explains this
phenomenon perfectly.
Lets see your explanation.

On Mar 21, 1:48*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:07 am, Mike Collins wrote:

So what you are actually saying is this: Let's ignore the fact that the sun
is visible at both poles on the equinox because it invalidates Oriels
infantile theories

With all due respect to atmospheric refraction and its effects in many
areas,the immense and noble discipline of planetary dynamics focuses
attention of the polar coordinates turning through the circle of
illumination and into their respective orbital cycles of day or
night.While the observers for refraction are many,the audience for the
orbital dynamic are few.

Everything from the annual tidal cycles to the observed variations in
natural noon are contingent on knowing that the polar coordinates act
like a beacon into the orbital behavior of the planet,a particularly
21st century view which incorporates the emerging astronomy of
planetary comparisons.

Let's try some planetary comparisons then,

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf071/sf071a06.htm
Describes the " hot poles" of mercury. Mercury's sidereal day explains this
phenomenon perfectly.
Lets see your explanation.

Observers here have spent the best part of 6 years ignoring
conclusive observations that the daily rotational alignment of Uranus
remains fixed in one direction in its annual orbit just as the
alignment of the Earth is to Polaris,the polar coordinates turn in a
circle to the central Sun and can be seen to do so -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

The South to North daily rotation of Uranus combines with the East to
West quasi-rotation to the central Sun generating a uniquely polar
climate on Uranus while the Earth's climate is largely Equatorial and
with less than a 30% polar influence as there is a 23 1/2 degree
separation between the intrinsic rotational axis and the traveling
orbital axis while the angle of Uranus is close to 90 degrees.

While not directly at the polar coordinates,these webcams at 77
degrees S which would have enjoyed constant sunlight for the last 6
months are now descending into darkness -

http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/mcmwebcam.cfm

An astronomer should be capable of explaining the transition from
polar daylight to polar darkness without the slightest hesitation
rather than rely on the older and less productive 'tilt' to the Sun
explanation or some variation on that theme.So,planetary comparisons
reveal information that would otherwise be difficult to attain,I know
this because the effort it took to disentangle the orbital trait from
daily rotation was considerable yet once the major obstacle was
overcome and modern imaging along with terrestrial effects arrive,the
perceptual burden vanishes or almost so.

For the longest time I have wished that this new approach to the
equinoxes be handled in a more dignified manner but perhaps this is
the way new discoveries emerge,I just can't see any reason to maintain
an awkward view that won't answer anything and expose a type of apathy
out there -

"An equinox occurs twice a year, when the tilt of the Earth's axis is
inclined neither away from nor towards the Sun, the center of the Sun
being in the same plane as the Earth's equator." Wikipedia