It has been previously demonstrated that the Polaris perspective is an orbital function of the Earth's motion around the Sun. The North pole turns in a circle parallel to the orbital plane and scribes a circle on that account coincident with the
circumference of the Arctic/ Antarctic circles. In other words, relative to the orbital plane and North ecliptic pole, the daily rotational North pole lies on a circle with a circumference equal to the Arctic circle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory#/media/File:EpicEarth-Globespin-tilt-23.4.gif

The Earth has an ecliptic Equator through its maximum circumference as an extension of this circle created by the motion of the North pole and subsequently has an ecliptic North pole. Copernicus originally described the feature of the North pole scribing
a circle; however, as he was limited to the deficient Ptolemaic framework, he had to sacrifice that perspective to account for the celestial sphere/orb framework-

"The third is the motion in declination. For the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the axis of the great circle but is inclined to it at an angle that intercepts a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2ø. Therefore, while the
centre of the earth always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of the great circle, the poles of the earth rotate, both of them describing small circles about centres equidistant from the axis of the great circle."
Copernicus

That is a technical description so it should interest researchers in the matter of the planet's magnetic field which wanders and sometimes changes polarity with those signatures written in crustal developments either side of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge-

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Oceanic.Stripe.Magnetic.Anomalies.Scheme.svg

It suggests that there is a tug-of war between the daily rotational and orbital poles with the structure of the solar system. The research hasn't even started yet because the technical reasons are ignored or worse.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 3:06:20 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

It has been previously demonstrated that the Polaris perspective is an orbital function of the
Earth's motion around the Sun. The North pole turns in a circle parallel to the orbital plane
and scribes a circle on that account coincident with the circumference of the Arctic/ Antarctic
circles. In other words, relative to the orbital plane and North ecliptic pole, the daily rotational
North pole lies on a circle with a circumference equal to the Arctic circle.

And, _vice versa_, there is no one location on Earth that can be called its North ecliptic pole,
since that travels around the Arctic circle just about once a day (in sync, of course, with
the daily circumpolar motion of the stars).

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

How I wish I had someone close to the standard of Copernicus with the ability to appreciate that while the North pole has no daily rotational velocity, it turns in a circle parallel to the orbital plane, thereby scribing a circle equivalent to the
circumference of the Arctic circle relative to the stationary Sun and the light/dark hemispheres of the Earth.

Once that circle is ascertained, then both an ecliptic Equator and Ecliptic poles can be assigned to the surface of the planet and not coincident with the daily rotational characteristics.

The North pole turns in a 16,000 km circle relative to the Sun so, divided by 365 days, the North pole turns at an average rate of 44 km per day as that orbital surface rotation is variable as a function of the Earth's annual motion.

At the Earth's ecliptic Equator, the rotational velocity goes up to 69 km per day, while at the North ecliptic Pole the value goes to zero.

This is no theory, this is an observation with cause and effect.



--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:37:30 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

The analogy I often use is that the nose of a person's body represents roughly
where the North pole is relative to the orbital plane ( a person's midriff) is so
the ecliptic pole as a surface reference is the top of a person's head.

The Polaris effect is an orbital feature as the person's nose always faces in the same direction as they walk/orbit around a central object representing the
central Sun. If a ball is used to represent the Sun, the distance between the nose and the surface of the ball will be different at opposite ends of an orbit.
This represents a circle the nose must go through as a person walks around the ball in a specific way while keeping their nose orientated to the same spot.

RA/Dec, or clockwork solar system modelling, makes Polaris a daily rotational feature, so everything goes astray from this point onwards.

Just as the Earth's North Pole points in the direction of Polaris, the north ecliptic pole, I see, points
in (or at least very near to) the direction of the Cat's Eye Nebula, NGC 6543. So at least the ecliptic
pole has a location in the sky, even though it can be anywhere on the Arctic Circle on Earth.

As for the substance of your posting, it is hard for me to comment on its merits.

The Earth's rotation is such that it is on an axis that is aligned with the direction from
the Sun to a spot near Polaris. That's a fact about the Earth's rotation.

It's also a fact about the Earth's orbit, in a sense, that the Earth's rotation doesn't precess
once a year - for example, the Earth isn't in a perpetual Winter solstice, with the Earth's
axis always pointing 23 1/2 degrees away from the Sun! But the reason for *that* is because
*angular momentum is conserved*; that is, the same laws apply to the Earth as apply to
a spinning top - so that is _still_ not only a fact about the Earth's rotation, but, worse yet,
it's rank Newtonianism!

At least, it smells bad to you.

Sadly, at least from your viewpoint, the educational system has done such a good job
of indoctrinating young people with Newtonianism that your objectons, whatever they
are, end up being basically incomprehensible to everyone else.

Or has it? The state of education, at least in some parts of the United States, is
so parlous that a large number of people grow up ignorant of very basic facts about science, geography, and a number of other people. Witness the increasing popularity of the idea that the Earth is flat. Therefore, I can't completely rule out
the possibility of some... articulate and persuasive individual... taking up your
ideas and starting a new mass movement, no doubt starting by means of a few videos on YouTube.

On which Donald Trump's account has just been re-instated, in related news.

Thankfuly, this disaster has not yet happened, and we have not yet been treated to videos explaining why the Moon does not rotate. (Or haven't we? I haven't exactly _searched_ for such videos...)

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The analogy I often use is that the nose of a person's body represents roughly where the North pole is relative to the orbital plane ( a person's midriff) is so the ecliptic pole as a surface reference is the top of a person's head.

The Polaris effect is an orbital feature as the person's nose always faces in the same direction as they walk/orbit around a central object representing the central Sun. If a ball is used to represent the Sun, the distance between the nose and the
surface of the ball will be different at opposite ends of an orbit. This represents a circle the nose must go through as a person walks around the ball in a specific way while keeping their nose orientated to the same spot.

RA/Dec, or clockwork solar system modelling, makes Polaris a daily rotational feature, so everything goes astray from this point onwards.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 5:02:42 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

Thankfuly, this disaster has not yet happened, and we have not yet been treated
to videos explaining why the Moon does not rotate. (Or haven't we? I haven't exactly _searched_ for such videos...)

Oh, no! When I did search, one of the first results I found was this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cwVjTFnSbg

which, at least if you believe its title, shows that you have already
succeeded in converting Neil De Grasse Tyson, previously one of
the most famous advocates of the Newtonian empiricist world view!

But that's really an artifact of the title, it doesn't actually represent
a change in his viewpoint.

But apparently *this* video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-aQIX9ois

does represent someone who authentically accepts your position
on this matter. However, the song, while in a Calypso beat, doesn't
really go into depth on the issue, to present a full persuasive
argument.

I had to scroll quite a ways down the result, but I finally did find
what seems to be a real attempt to present this argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL3rOdAR-Xk

Applying the same principles to the Earth, to give it 24 hour
rotation instead of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds...

I'm not sure what search terms I would use for that. I _did_ see,
recently, a video from a flat-Earther who, by getting the sidereal
day and the solar day mixed up, said that since this led to him
having the Sun over Africa at opposite times of the day 6 months
apart, it proved the Earth was flat.

Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuKealG5Ug8

He begins this video by saying "The other day, the Lord laid
something on my heart"... sadly, he believes his own delusions
and errors are Divine revelation, which will make it all the harder
for him to come to his senses.

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)