If the Earth were 100cm in Latitude and I placed a 200cm ruler beginning at the North Pole across to the Equator , would I find the Sun at the end of the ruler ?
Is the Sun ''45 degrees'' South of the Earth ?
- Thread starter Thermoman
- Start date
I wished I could upload a picture model.
Yes I viewed your link in the other thread so started this thread to refrain from Sun talk in that thread .
Ok, relativity and observation .
If the Sun orbits the equator then a person in Australia at Midday see's the Sun towards the North , they are effectively looking up towards the equator .If this event doesn't happen then what you have provided is incorrect .
Any Australians on here answer this question ?
Just don't forget planetary tilt.
en.wikipedia.org
You can post images. Upload to a site like imgur.com and then post a link to the image here.
Axial tilt - Wikipedia
You can post images. Upload to a site like imgur.com and then post a link to the image here.
Yes I am aware of planetary tilt although I'd describe that more of a curved path .Just don't forget planetary tilt.
Axial tilt - Wikipedia
You can post images. Upload to a site like imgur.com and then post a link to the image here.
My Astonomy explains an ascent and descent curvature relative to the Sun .
I am located in England and in the morning my relative path is a curved ascent , I reach middayish where I am then postioned at the top of the curve before I then start my curved descent into shadow .
I will look at images as it is much easier to ask a question with an image !
I have Just done some research and viewed some Melbourne beaches in the sunshine . I observed peoples and items shadows were notherly in direction which implies the Sunshine was from South as I described , the Sun being below the Earth .Just don't forget planetary tilt.
Axial tilt - Wikipedia
You can post images. Upload to a site like imgur.com and then post a link to the image here.
Unless Australia is upside down on google maps ?
I don't know what to tell you that you'll accept. The Sun is certainly not "under" the Earth.
As provided by multiple links, the relative position of the two bodies changes throughout an orbital cycle.
So, standing on the north or pole, the view will be different throughout the year. Same for all points in between.
As provided by multiple links, the relative position of the two bodies changes throughout an orbital cycle.
So, standing on the north or pole, the view will be different throughout the year. Same for all points in between.
I don't think you understand my query . If the Sun was aligned to the equator horizontal , people north of the equator would look south , people on the equator would look up and people in Australia would look north .
This is the relativity of observation .
However , my research is showing this doesn't happen ,Australians ,notherners and equators , all view the Sun South which would mean it was below the Earth .
From an angle below the Earth the North pole could receive 24 hrs of daylight because the North pole has no ascent of descent path as such so it remains out of shadow.
Try this experiment , shine a flash light/torch at an angle from below a ball but an angle so the top of the ball catches the light , then spin the ball , notice the ''face'' of the ball will have shadow areas but the top has light always .
I'e England changes position but the North pole doesn't !
I estimate the suns position ~225 degrees off the equator , the equator still being the nearest point of EMR contact !
Are you factoring in the distance between the two bodies? Angular difference, at any given time, at that distance is rather small.
The distance between bodies is far enough so that people can see the Sun from anywhere on Earth . I would be lying if I said I knew this distance or could measure it !
I can only state my query based on my existing observations and research .
I may even consider the Northern lights is gravitational lensing where light is curving around towards the North Pole ! A ~225 degrees angular position of the Sun to the equator could have this affect on the North field .
Solar winds (particles) would just pass through the EMF and burn up in re-entry , not make spectral frequencies .
P.s I have angled cameras in photography to create beams of coloured light so Northern Flare sounds right to me !
Your 45/225 degree angle assumption doesn't align with the materials provided earlier.
What makes you think you are correct over everything presented?
Good luck on this. I'm out.
What makes you think you are correct over everything presented?
Good luck on this. I'm out.
Well I don't know I am correct without confirmation of some of my queries/questions . I may be correct based on what I've observed but until confirmed by others , my theory isn't fact . The Australia question prove me correct or incorrect .
Thanks for your time on this , appreciated!
According to google maps , this picture shows the Sun South East of Australia , Australia will curve around with the Earths spin and the Sun will be South .
www.google.co.uk
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Go down to the equator and clear a level area. Erect a telephone pole and pitch a tent. At noon each day, place a pebble at the tip of the pole’s shadow. For 365 days.
How many pebbles are N and how many S? Did the last pebble meet the first? How many equator crossings?
You can see a lot with a stick in the ground.
How many pebbles are N and how many S? Did the last pebble meet the first? How many equator crossings?
You can see a lot with a stick in the ground.
Indeed , a stick can do a lot but so can direct observation . It looks like the Sun and Earth path is a sharp curve ''over'' Australia close to between Tazmania and Australia.
I think the Sun may be closer than I first thought .
From a walk around on Goolge maps using various positions it looks like the Sun curves sharp from East Australia around to the South but over the land rather than south to the south pole like I first thought .
I will do some more research later, I can't find a clear conclusion on a south beach .
Ok,now to South Africa, the Sun in this shot is almost South and well below the equator. I think I proved my thoughts with this shot .
www.google.co.uk
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
ok , I might have you a new space-time model !
North , South , East , West , East West and West East
Imagine a cross with another horizontal , so if you looked from above , you'd see another cross .
~225 South East is the Sun relative to the equator
~325 North West the big dipper
These are preliminary results of the model and not exact yet .
I'm trying to use a vertical and horizontal protractor .
Ok, top, bottom , left , right , front , rear . That sounds easier .
Difficult to add more angulars in my mind , might have to draw it .
The Idea is we place the cross-cross in the center of the Earth and extend the ''bars'' . This is how we can map things much more effectively . In essence a cross-cross will have 4 3d sections or zones if you like .
~
North , South , East , West , East West and West East
Imagine a cross with another horizontal , so if you looked from above , you'd see another cross .
~225 South East is the Sun relative to the equator
~325 North West the big dipper
These are preliminary results of the model and not exact yet .
I'm trying to use a vertical and horizontal protractor .
Ok, top, bottom , left , right , front , rear . That sounds easier .
Difficult to add more angulars in my mind , might have to draw it .
The Idea is we place the cross-cross in the center of the Earth and extend the ''bars'' . This is how we can map things much more effectively . In essence a cross-cross will have 4 3d sections or zones if you like .
~
I have been unable to understand this thread. However, if it helps - the sun is so big it shines over a bit more than a hemisphere of Earth.
I'll take no further part,
but enjoy
I'll take no further part,
but enjoy
Originally, you wanted to put a ruler from the North Pole to the equator; you'd obviously have to bend the ruler, and a bent ruler isn't accurate, or returns a different measurement than a straight one.
To use compass coordinates in relating celestial bodies is lacking a dimension, 'z'.
There is no North/South in space, because there is no standard reference point; you can call any direction "North" but you won't be able to maneuver with compass points as a reference.
The notion that one planet is "above" or "below" another body is inadequate to reference its spacial location. You need to reference three points of location at once; "above" is inadequate to the task of marking locations.
To use compass coordinates in relating celestial bodies is lacking a dimension, 'z'.
There is no North/South in space, because there is no standard reference point; you can call any direction "North" but you won't be able to maneuver with compass points as a reference.
The notion that one planet is "above" or "below" another body is inadequate to reference its spacial location. You need to reference three points of location at once; "above" is inadequate to the task of marking locations.
The idea was to use the equator as a fulcrum , the ruler was straight and 4*r from the np to the eq .
Up until now there was no North or South in space ! The Earth this way up as always been our relative reference point !
Knowing the Sun is below and the saucepan is up,gives us a cross reference point /\
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 178
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram