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's interior and its viscosity in the need to justify thermal 'convection cells',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 people who reason at that level or the need to discuss rotational matters with them,that is not an insult but my choice.Oriel36 (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to "it is not a matter of what you or anyone else thinks about the Earth's interior and its viscosity in the need to justify thermal 'convection cells'": we don't do it to justify convection cells; that's not how science works. We do it because it is consistent with our observations of Earth's interior and its deformations. You are free, however, to believe and and declare what you will, so long as it is not on the article talk page. Awickert (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the lag/advance mechanism for the MAR using differential rotation ,the symmetrical generation of crust off the entire length of the ridge along with the rotational orientation of the ridge and the fracture zone,s but these things are done out of a respect and love for the actual geology of the planet.You are just a kid who dwells in the glow of your newly earned degree that was conferred on you for ticking all the right boxes and that is fine, but the real pioneers of geology almost have to be as big as the topic itself to unearth the treasures which link the geo-dynamics of a rotating fluid interior with crustal dynamics,surface features and short term events like Earthquakes and volcanoes.The stationary Earth thermal 'convection cells' mirrors the lethargic viscosity while is contrary to all the dynamics of explosive volcanoes or seismic events signifying a dynamic interior and probably many already know it.Now that is enough out of you,I have given you enough of my time so go back to your lethargic plastic interior if that is what you wish. Oriel36 (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the cannot do any of that if they ignore the measurements that scientists who have gone before them have made :). On the topic of flying in the face of fact, you have me wrong too. I am going to bring this up per WP:NPA.

On a personal level though, I hope that you can bring your interest in the Earth into a desire to both develop your own hypotheses and do the background research to test their plausibility and their significance. And I hope you have an absolute blast doing it. For example, the dynamics of volcanoes at subduction zones is because of the dewatering of the mineral chlorite that destabilizes the solid solution of the local mantle, producing melt and volcanism. Isn't that cool! Awickert (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oriel36, this is the third admin posting on your talkpage. This is not a good scenario. Firstly, knock off the personal attacks, they are not called for. Secondly, point me to the book or scientific journal where it says what you are saying. Awickert, I recommend you stop arguing sciency stuff with him now, as you may be leading Oriel36 to believe that this is primarily a science driven discussion. It is not. It is exclusively a source driven discussion.If you've got a reference, reference it. If you haven't - it doesn't go in the article. Simple as that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You listen to me whoever you are,if you are prepared to remove every single reference to a rotating celestial fluid composition with differential rotation then and only then dare lecture me on what is and is not science because until I have presented the geological adjustments to take into account the links between the rotational dynamics of the interior with surface features and crustal/motion evolution ,you would still be exempting the Earth's interior from fluid dynamics of differential rotation.Oriel36 (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again - What you are doing here is original research, which is not what Wikipedia is here for.

As you have made it blatantly clear that you are not listening to us and intend to continue posting about and advocating for your novel theory regarding fluid rotation in liquid planetary bodies, in violation of Wikipedia's core values, I have indefinitely blocked you from editing Wikipedia other than on your talk page here.

If you decide that you want to participate in Wikipedia going forwards, and are willing to abide by our no original research policy, our core values, and related policy - you are welcome to request an unblock. Any administrator can unblock you immediately if they are convinced by your discussion that you will edit constructively going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it as being blocked,what I do see is an attempt to exempt functioning of rotational dynamics as applied to the Earth's geological features through normal differential rotation as observed in all rotating celestial bodies with viscous compositions therefore you are denying a rotating Earth from the perspective of fluid dynamics.I couldn't care less if you never appreciated fluid dynamics insofar as my business is to find people who already understand the basics of rotational fluid dynamics and not pander to people who cannot.Oriel36 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely missing the point. Wikipedia is not your soap box to grandstand and post your original research, nor is it a free blog for you to post your opinions. This is an encyclopedia built upon reliable sources. It is not a publisher of original thought.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 00:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what you do,find me a rotating celestial object with a viscous composition that does not have differential rotation or one with 'convection cells' alone and then you can consider the rotational mechanism to be invalid or original research or go into the 'differential rotation' section or any other related article and state specifically that the Earth's fluid interior is exempt from the rules governing celestial rotation and fluid dynamics.Stop throwing around this continuous assertion that this is totally 'original research',this is applying already known observations of exposed rotating viscous compositions and applying the lessons to the rotating Earth where it is an effective mechanisn in linking the spherical deviation of the planet with crustal evolution and motion.Oriel36 (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. That is clear original research. That aside;

Do you, or do you not want to edit here?

Answer this question with more of the same that you've been posting here, and I'll request that you lose the ability to edit this page, and then I'll blank it. Wikipedia is not your soapbox to publish your original thought.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 11:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over these complaints made against me and they fail to comprehend the central topic which dictates scientific investigation on the technical issues where astronomy and geology mesh,differential rotation is a mainstream topic relating to fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial body hence the exemption of the Earth's fluid interior from that rotational feature puts the complaints against me in context .I have no control over these Wiki blocking things and no complaint about those who engage in it,what I will say is that the necessary bridge between planetary dynamics and geological evolution and specifically the relationship between the rotating fluid interior the the relative motions and evolution of the fractured surface crust is conditional on affirmation by observation and not speculation,the highest probability is therefore a rotational mechanism.You may go to the GSA meeting this weekend but the one talking point should be how the area of study surrounding a mechanism for crustal motion is going to exempt the Earth from generalized rules which govern the rotation of fluids by way of an uneven rotational gradients between equator and polar latitudes.This is not original research per se,it is an extension of known and observed dynamics applied to the Earth's rotating fluid interior so desist from throwing around the assertion that this is idiosyncratic when it is most certainly not.Oriel36 (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a professional geophysicist, but I know some, and I read a lot of their papers. I'm familiar with both gas giant and terrestrial planet fluid core motion modeling and analysis.

I believe that you are saying things that are not supported by the current science. The geophysicists around here have indicated so as well.

If what you were saying was aligned with current science, you could merely post paper citations from the Journal of Geophysical Review, Tectonics, Geophysical Review Letters, or any of the many other journals, symposia or conference proceedings, etc. You have been invited and told to do so.

If you have them please post them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat it one more time in a simple format - all rotating celestial bodies with viscous compositions display differential rotation,this is not original research,it is not an opinion or a speculative guess,it is an affirmed observation.To exempt the Earth from the generalized rules governing the rotation of viscous bodies and the uneven rotational gradient between rotational equator and poles in order to justify non-rotational mechanisms such as 'convection cells' and viscosities built around that mechanism is a direct challenge to all Wiki articles related to planetary dynamics,differential rotation or any other topic where dynamics and effects mesh.Many of you would do well to take note of the spirit of the originator of plate tectonics in bringing in information from other disciplines in order to discover geological components such as the mechanism with the probability of the highest success -

"Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw."Alfred Wegener. The Origins of Continents and Oceans (4th edition)Oriel36 (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Wegener passed away in 1930, 20 years before modern experimental geophysics established the fact of continental drift experimentally and 80 years ago today.

He is not an adequate citation for current geophysical theory or criticism thereof. The science has evolved a bit over those 80 years. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An appropriate judgment on a stationary Earth 'convection cells' mechanism is probably in the vein of Copernicus in judging the monster concepts built around a stationary Earth or the lack of interpretation of a moving Earth -

"... although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543

A modification on the scale which shifts the emphasis away from thermal convection to rotational dynamics must be supported by observation and interpretation over speculation and is not an attempt to convince people they are wrong but a wider view encompassing a detour into astronomy provides the necessary links to the fluid dynamics of the Earth's interior.I do not intend to comment further on the matter of citations or my own research,at least here in Wikipedia.Oriel36 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.