User talk:Oriel36

Reverted edits on Earth's rotation

Hi there, wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits on Earth's rotation. It appears to have removed a great deal of information without any reason.

I apologize if I made a mistake. -Frazzydee|✍ 06:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are seeing is a continuation of a very old struggle,John Harrison created accurate clocks based on the idea that 1 degree of geographical separation is the equivalent of 4 minutes clock time organised around the Earth's daily rotational characteristics,this you see in terms of the imaginary lines of longitude ,he succeeded in building that clock in spite of the opposition of the vast majority who believed the Earth rotates in 'sidereal time'.Harrison wrote of that opposition and if you care to look on page 90 - 91 he explains that the Earth once in 24 hours and with good reason -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q=remarks&f=false

So,it is a struggle and just as I am determined to restore the history of Harrison,Huygens and the works of the great astronomers stretching back to antiquity,so too is the opposition willing to promote ridiculous 'sidereal time' junk that no student should ever be expected to read.It depends on which side you are on.

I am reverting this nonsense again. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that we keep our civil time with respect to the motion of the sun? Nobody is saying that our home clocks and watches should use sidereal time! The only time anyone needs a special sidereal time clock is to aim a telescope, or perhaps to launch a space craft. The apparent motion of the sun is different than the apparent motions of the distant stars. —Długosz (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that if you use a stopwatch to gauge the circumpolar return of a star to the same spot it registers 23 hours 56 minutes and reset the stopwatch and then gauge the return of the same star and it will register 23 hours 56 minutes once again,all you have is a constant 'sidereal time' cycle .Pick any star in Ursa Major and equating a rotating celestial sphere through 360 degrees with a rotating Earth is all you are ever going to get,a spinning Earth at the center of a celestial sphere -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

The circumpolar return of a star to the same spot in 'sidereal time' only tells you how good the average 24 hour day and the 365/366 day calendar system is but the observation cannot be used to determine any facet of planetary dynamics,it was a mistake by John Flamsteed to jump to the conclusion whether you care to live with the error or not.Oriel36 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same breath you seem to say that the 23:56 cycle confirms the accuracy of the 24:00 cycle (?!) and that it tells us nothing. How do you decide which observations are useful and which are not?

All space-probes are purportedly steered according to principles derived from the "error" of sidereal time. Are all their results faked, or are their operators parties to a mass cover-up of the 24:00 truth? —Tamfang (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Earth's rotation has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Mikeo (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To find me in error,you must omit the entire history of longitude,planetary geometry/geography and every known astronomer before John Flamsteed made his 'sidereal time' error which links daily rotation directly with circumpolar motion of the constellations.Failure to deal with the error which leads to the loss of basic planetary facts such as rotational characteristics and dimensions and gross distortions in the history of astronomy and timekeeping undermines the very purpose of Wikipedia.There is nothing more urgent or with a greater priority than this topic.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Earth's rotation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who wrote that 'revised' article on the Earth's rotation but Wikipedia will receive the severest condemnation when I return to this topic in future,because of its priority there can be no ambiguity as to the technical details between the average 24 hour day and natural noon and its links to constant rotation and longitude, what exists presently is totally unreadable, utterly stupid and no student should encounter a level of reasoning designed to conceal rather than reveal what is basically a very simple statement of fact- the Earth turns once in 24 hours.The principle for rotation once in 24 hours is a clear and clear trajectory of reasoning which extracts the average 24 hour day from natural noon and then transfers that to rotation as a constant -

"Draw a Meridian line upon a floor and then hang two plummets, each by a small thred or wire, directly over the said Meridian, at the distance of some 2. feet or more one from the other, as the smalness of the thred will admit. When the middle of the Sun (the Eye being placed so, as to bring both the threds into one line) appears to be in the same line exactly you are then immediately to set the Watch, not precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the Aequation of the day by the Table." Huygens http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

There is no external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees,there is an assumption that rotation averages to 24 hours which can then be transfered to the idea of rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour but 'sidereal time' freaks,the ones who are reverting my corrections, have pinned daily rotation directly to circumpolar motion of the constellations in direct conflict and an assault on proper astronomical principles.Oriel36 (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to contribute your wisdom to geocentric model or modern geocentrism. —Tamfang (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please read WP:3rr as you appear to be involved in a revert war at Earth's rotation. Please stop and discuss your concerns rationally on the article talk page. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link provided above where the King of England stepped in and sided with John Harrison against a bunch of boring numbskulls who,despite their large numbers,lost the longitude prize to a single individual who created the first accurate watch based on the principle that the Earth rotates at a rate of 15 degrees per hour (24 hours/360 degrees ).Like your counterparts in the 18th century,you lot will lose again and this time for good and never again will a student suffer through the crude 'sidereal time' reasoning.People who cannot grasp the idea that the Earth turns once in 24 hours are unintelligent hence there is no discussion and I am having none of it.

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Earth's rotation. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the historical and technical details for the rotation of the Earth once in 24 hours and at a rate of 15 degrees per hour so the vandalism is entirely on the 'sidereal time' side.You had better believe that this struggle is very well known outside Wikipedia so before you attempt to block the information,be aware that you are out of your depth when or if you do so.

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Template:Z9 Vsmith (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oriel36 has been crusading against sidereal time since at least 2003 on various astronomy and physics Google Groups, using the same name, Oriel36. I presume this is what he means by "this struggle is very well known outside Wikipedia". — Joe Kress (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got that wrong,I am not crusading against anything but reminding people that the facts for rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour and all causes and effects of this rotation such as twilight variations at different latitudes rely on a clear set of values where the equatorial speed is 1037.5 miles per hour and turning a full 24,901 mile equatorial circumference in 24 hours.The newsgroups,for all their disadvantages,presently provide the most favorable conduit for conveying the information which is starting to filter into institutional descriptions.Oriel36 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What institutions accept your information? Joe Kress (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those that aren't part of the coverup conspiracy, of course. —Tamfang (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the origin of your value 1037.5 mph for equatorial rotation speed? How would twilight look different if 23:56 were accurate? —Tamfang (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The genius of my astronomical ancestors was to transfer the average 24 hour day to daily rotation as a constant by using the 'average' part to substitute for 'constant' thereby no external reference was required to determine rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour.The disgraceful disregard for the entire history and technical details of the longitude problem which focuses all the component parts of planetary geography,dimensions,the invention of accurate clocks,the relationship between natural noon and 24 hour noon relies on a flawed judgement by Flamsteed,who by historical accounts,was not very good at interpretation - "The character of his [Flamsteed] mind is more remarkable for activity, and that sort of sagacity which leads to practical skill, than for any of the higher endowments. In point of genius, his name is not to be mentioned with that of Newton; he was immeasurably inferior even to his rival, Halley. His mathematical knowledge, even for the time, appears to have been extremely limited. He set no value on the physical speculations of Newton, and evidently never understood them." http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/OTHE00091

Guess what,Newton built on Flamsteed's assumption for the stellar circumpolar motion/daily rotation perspective so in a way Flamsteed gets a belated revenge for his treatment by Newton insofar as that is the rub, as a follower of Newton's agenda you are not following Newton's 'masterpiece' but Flamsteed's error and specifically the assumption that constant circumpolar motion of a celestial sphere through 360 degrees equates to constant rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees.No offence to the arguments and disputes of the late 17th century but why should our era be chained to silly mistakes when these errors and distortions can be undone simply and effectively.Those who grit their teeth and ignore that all this is now out in the open should now conduct themselves that the error out in the open to discuss,deal with it and move on to productive issues based on the correction.Oriel36 (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I was about to ask how you can know that the Earth is rotating at all without external reference, but then remembered Foucault's pendulum. Does the pendulum support 24:00 over 23:56, or is Foucault one of the badguys?

You seem to say that the rotation speed varies predictably over the year. What causes that?

Since the evidence for 23:56 does not depend on Flamsteed's personal qualities, you might consider giving that a rest. —Tamfang (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Plate tectonics. Thank you. Awickert (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message comes from an administrator who has not been involved in the arguments. Wikipedia policy is that articles must be based on information from reliable sources. Arguments at talk pages are disruptive if they are not based on reliable sources, because they are not useful for improving articles. Several editors have complained that your edits at Talk:Plate tectonics are disruptive in this way, and it's clear to me that their complaints are justified. You need to stop doing this, or I will have to take administrative action to resolve the problem. Looie496 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second Looie496's comment, as another uninvolved administrator.

What you are writing is original research - Wikipedia is built upon the premise that we cite other verifiable, reliable sources, not publish new theories or ideas ourselves.

You need to publish your theory in geophysical journals, not Wikipedia. If you can do so and pass their peer review THEN it is appropriate for Wikipedia. If you continue attempting to push the theory here, you're abusing Wikipedia and violating our core values as an encyclopedia. We will block you if you continue that.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see this -

What is differential rotation? Differential rotation is when a rotating body has different angular velocities at different latitudes and/or depths of the body and/or in time. Differential rotation can be applied to any type of fluid body such as gaseous planets, stars and galaxies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_rotation_in_stars

Differential rotation is not original research,it is an observable fact and if you exempt the Earth's fluid interior from that mechanism,I am afraid that it is 'convection cells' and the omission of that rotational mechanism that lacks the stamp of authority.You do what you need to do but in this instance you will find yourself between a rock and a hard place in what is original and what is not.Oriel36 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is real (as I said on the PT talk page), but not important for the Earth because of the much higher viscosity. This is why there are not studies relating differential rotation to the Earth. Awickert (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it do you,it is not a matter of what you or anyone else thinks about the Earth interior and its viscosity,it is whether you accept differential rotation as a consequence of a rotating viscous celestial body and then decide to exempt the Earth from rotational fluid dynamics .To exempt the Earth from observable phenomena relating to the rotation of a viscous composition constitutes original research and I would not waste one second considering the fluid interior of the Earth without a rotational component whereas 'convection cells' are tantamount to the reasoning processes of stationary Earth investigators thereby disqualifying the need to consult with people who reason at that level,that is not an insult but my choice.Oriel36 (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]