--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would recommend you get a copy of "Practical Astronomy with your > Pocket Calculator" which you can get used real cheap. One of the > important concepts to grok in celestial mechanics is *frames of > reference*. For example, there are horizon coordinates, equatorial > coordinates, ecliptic coordinates, Galactic coordinates, etc. All are > *different* frames of reference. While precession will tell you how > the satellites appear and change in regards to the background of > "fixed" stars, it's really a different frame of reference than when > your talking about where the sun is in the sky related to earths > horizon. In that regard the important thing is the earths orbit > around the sun, which is an ellipse, not a circle. Therefore the > important thing is it's eccentricity and it's eccentric anomalies. > These are how you'll really calculate the suns positions, rIise/set > times, etc. > > For example, you could learn how to calculate the actual position of > the sun, sunrises and sunsets, etc. and it would then become clear > that these orbital dynamics are what will determine the position of > the sun from the reference point of the earths horizon. Yes the > background of the stars does change over time, but only when you > include them in your frame of reference.
Thanks. I will explore that. Indeed I may be missing something. Yet no one has found any factual or logic flaws in the 8 points I listed, or explained the cites I provided that report the slow retreat of the date of the vernal equinox -- and the long-term weather cycles caused by precession. To date eveeryone says the conclusion is wrong because "its wrong". No coherent explanation as to why, countering the evidence has been presented. I have found in jyotish circles, where long time practicioners often have some strong understanding of celeestial mechanics, still get it wrong when confronted with very long range phenomenon. What works, and assumptions of what is reasonable over a 100 year span often don't work or are not valid over a 20,000 year span. While this is not a proof of my conclusion, it is a caution to those seeped in good astronomical knowledge in the 100 year frame. To the critics, if it is so clear my conclusion is so wrong, simply point out the error in my 8-points. And provide a convincing explanation for the trend towards an earlier VE, as well as the precesson-caused the long term weather cycles. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
