Originally posted by Saros
View Post
But, let see something about that stinky heliocentric holly grail:
Why doesn't the latest sunset fall on the longest day of the year?
Dr Fred Watson answers:
In essence, it all comes down to how we measure time.
As a rule the sun isn't a very reliable time keeper, Watson points out, mainly because the Earth orbits the sun in an elliptical pattern, running faster when it is closest to the sun in January and slower when it is furthest away from the sun in July.
"It's slightly faster in [the Southern Hemisphere] summer than in our winter," says Watson.
Yeah, right, only it is not the Earth which orbits the sun faster, but contrary it is the sun that orbits the Earth faster, and that is only possible convincing explanation and reasonable answer to above question.
That is why we are not surprised at all to see the comment of dr Watson's explanation like this:
Alan Cooper :
I believe that if you asked him to compare the magnitudes of the two effects mentioned, Dr Watson would agree that the difference between solar time and clock time due to the geometric effect of the tilted axis is actually greater than that due to the eccentricity of the earth's orbit. So the reference to the earth speeding up and slowing down as the major factor in the successively delayed times of sunrise is in fact a bit misleading.
I believe that if you asked him to compare the magnitudes of the two effects mentioned, Dr Watson would agree that the difference between solar time and clock time due to the geometric effect of the tilted axis is actually greater than that due to the eccentricity of the earth's orbit. So the reference to the earth speeding up and slowing down as the major factor in the successively delayed times of sunrise is in fact a bit misleading.
We are going to remind our readers once again of some very important facts:
Thus it is a well ascertained fact that the constant sunlight of the north develops, with the utmost rapidity, numerous forms of vegetable life, and furnishes subsistence for millions of living creatures. But in the south, where the sunlight never dwells, or lingers about a central region, but rapidly sweeps over sea and land, to complete in twenty-four hours the great circle of the southern circumference, it has not time to excite and stimulate the surface; and, therefore, even in comparatively low southern latitudes, everything wears an aspect of desolation...
Some have objected to the conclusion here drawn, on the ground that the latitude of New Zealand is considerably less than that of England; but the objection falls before. the fact that the abruptness of twilight and the coldness. of the summer nights are observed far out south beyond New Zealand. The author cannot here quote from any recognized work, but he has often been assured that this, is the common experience of navigators, and especially of whaling crews, who often wander over the vast waters beyond the latitude of 50 degrees. A remarkable illustration of this experience occurred some years ago in Liverpool. At the termination of a lecture, in which this subject had been discussed, a sailor requested leave to speak, and gave the following story:--
"I was once confined on an island in South Tasmania, and had long been very anxious to escape; one morning I saw a whaling vessel in the offing, and being a good swimmer, I dashed into the sea to reach it. Being observed from the ship, a boat was sent out to pick me up. Immediately I got on board, we sailed away directly southwards. There happened to be a scarcity of hands, and I being able-bodied, was at once put to work. In the evening I was ordered aloft, and the captain cried out 'Be quick, Jack, or you'll be in the dark!' Now the sun was shining brightly, and it seemed far from the time of sunset, and I remember well that I looked at the captain, thinking he must be a little the worse for grog. However, I went aloft, and before I had finished the order, which was a very short time, I was in pitch darkness,--the sun seemed all at once to drop behind or below the sea. I noticed this all the time we were in the far south, whenever the sun was visible and the evening fine; and I only mention it now as corroborating the lecturer's statement. Any mariner, who has been a single season in the southern whaling grounds, will tell you the same thing."
Some have objected to the conclusion here drawn, on the ground that the latitude of New Zealand is considerably less than that of England; but the objection falls before. the fact that the abruptness of twilight and the coldness. of the summer nights are observed far out south beyond New Zealand. The author cannot here quote from any recognized work, but he has often been assured that this, is the common experience of navigators, and especially of whaling crews, who often wander over the vast waters beyond the latitude of 50 degrees. A remarkable illustration of this experience occurred some years ago in Liverpool. At the termination of a lecture, in which this subject had been discussed, a sailor requested leave to speak, and gave the following story:--
"I was once confined on an island in South Tasmania, and had long been very anxious to escape; one morning I saw a whaling vessel in the offing, and being a good swimmer, I dashed into the sea to reach it. Being observed from the ship, a boat was sent out to pick me up. Immediately I got on board, we sailed away directly southwards. There happened to be a scarcity of hands, and I being able-bodied, was at once put to work. In the evening I was ordered aloft, and the captain cried out 'Be quick, Jack, or you'll be in the dark!' Now the sun was shining brightly, and it seemed far from the time of sunset, and I remember well that I looked at the captain, thinking he must be a little the worse for grog. However, I went aloft, and before I had finished the order, which was a very short time, I was in pitch darkness,--the sun seemed all at once to drop behind or below the sea. I noticed this all the time we were in the far south, whenever the sun was visible and the evening fine; and I only mention it now as corroborating the lecturer's statement. Any mariner, who has been a single season in the southern whaling grounds, will tell you the same thing."
from its former 5 degree to its present 23.5 degrees. These conclusions are no less than incredible, especially in the climate of the scientific understanding of his day (he died only six years before the Moon landing ) and his impeccable scientific credentials.
By any standards, nonetheless, his arguments and supporting data are persuasive, and were it not for generally accepted alternative evidence, even convincing. In his research he discovered that the record of ancient and medieval observations of the obliquity of the ecliptic (the axial tilt of the Earth) did not tally with the accepted 'Newcomb Formula' and set out on a voyage of investigation to find the reasons for the discrepancies. In short, with enormous patience and single-minded diligence, he started from scratch. Nor did he allow himself to leave any stone unturned. In his manuscript he cites the Egyptian Dynasties, the Aztec Empire and Stonehenge among many other references; his tenacity and apparent logic are irreproachable.
And it's all there, in its detailed glory, for anyone with the time, the patience, the fortitude and an open mind to examine at the Mortlock Library, Adelaide. Mr Dodwell also sent a copy of his manuscript to the Royal Society but this august body decided against publication on the grounds that 'errors of ancient observations needed further discussion'. And so far as I know, there the matter ended.
Which was a great pity. The manuscript represented nearly thirty years of painstaking hard work and whether his conclusions were astonishingly right or shatteringly wrong, they were remarkable enough to deserve an airing.
Whatever may be the outcome will remain to be seen, but there is plenty of precedent for the ultimate success of theories that appeared inconclusive when first formulated. Take Copernicus, for example.
We have no way of knowing how the future will change our thinking but, who knows, the inestimable George Francis Dodwell's beliefs may yet be vindicated, dramatically changing our scientific direction...
Stranger things have happened...
) and his impeccable scientific credentials.By any standards, nonetheless, his arguments and supporting data are persuasive, and were it not for generally accepted alternative evidence, even convincing. In his research he discovered that the record of ancient and medieval observations of the obliquity of the ecliptic (the axial tilt of the Earth) did not tally with the accepted 'Newcomb Formula' and set out on a voyage of investigation to find the reasons for the discrepancies. In short, with enormous patience and single-minded diligence, he started from scratch. Nor did he allow himself to leave any stone unturned. In his manuscript he cites the Egyptian Dynasties, the Aztec Empire and Stonehenge among many other references; his tenacity and apparent logic are irreproachable.
And it's all there, in its detailed glory, for anyone with the time, the patience, the fortitude and an open mind to examine at the Mortlock Library, Adelaide. Mr Dodwell also sent a copy of his manuscript to the Royal Society but this august body decided against publication on the grounds that 'errors of ancient observations needed further discussion'. And so far as I know, there the matter ended.
Which was a great pity. The manuscript represented nearly thirty years of painstaking hard work and whether his conclusions were astonishingly right or shatteringly wrong, they were remarkable enough to deserve an airing.
Whatever may be the outcome will remain to be seen, but there is plenty of precedent for the ultimate success of theories that appeared inconclusive when first formulated. Take Copernicus, for example.
We have no way of knowing how the future will change our thinking but, who knows, the inestimable George Francis Dodwell's beliefs may yet be vindicated, dramatically changing our scientific direction...
Stranger things have happened...
Leave a comment: