I haven't found a theory to explain declination of the sun

  • 5 Replies
  • 2032 Views
I haven't found a theory to explain declination of the sun
« on: June 22, 2011, 01:48:20 PM »
I've looked through the various theories I could find on this site and a few others, but none have satisfactorily explained declination of the sun and the seasons, which both result in RET from the static tilt of the earth affecting the distance of each hemisphere from the sun during orbit.  Based on the FE models I've seen, in order for the sun's distance from the surface of the earth in a region to change the way it does through the year, radius of the sun's orbit would have to drastically increase and decrease over the course of the year, while the moon's would change very little.  Can anyone point me to a place this is addressed, or provide some theory?

Edit for clarification and numerical support:  the distances in question deal with the sun residing over the tropic of cancer vs the tropic of capricorn at its extremes, which is a bit over a 3000 mile change in radius and back during the course of the year.  This means the radius varies from about 4800 miles to about 8000 miles.  This means that the force maintaining the sun's orbit would have to be drastically growing and decreasing in strength.  This should drastically alter the moon's orbital radius as well, but it certainly doesn't as the moon only has about a 10% distance variance from the surface in conjunction with the 28 day lunar cycle.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 02:18:12 PM by Mantaray52 »

?

11cookeaw1

Re: I haven't found a theory to explain declination of the sun
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2011, 01:04:23 AM »
I've looked through the various theories I could find on this site and a few others, but none have satisfactorily explained declination of the sun and the seasons, which both result in RET from the static tilt of the earth affecting the distance of each hemisphere from the sun during orbit.  Based on the FE models I've seen, in order for the sun's distance from the surface of the earth in a region to change the way it does through the year, radius of the sun's orbit would have to drastically increase and decrease over the course of the year, while the moon's would change very little.  Can anyone point me to a place this is addressed, or provide some theory?

Edit for clarification and numerical support:  the distances in question deal with the sun residing over the tropic of cancer vs the tropic of capricorn at its extremes, which is a bit over a 3000 mile change in radius and back during the course of the year.  This means the radius varies from about 4800 miles to about 8000 miles.  This means that the force maintaining the sun's orbit would have to be drastically growing and decreasing in strength.  This should drastically alter the moon's orbital radius as well, but it certainly doesn't as the moon only has about a 10% distance variance from the surface in conjunction with the 28 day lunar cycle.
Bendy light and magic.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: I haven't found a theory to explain declination of the sun
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2011, 07:59:20 PM »
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: I haven't found a theory to explain declination of the sun
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2011, 01:04:18 PM »
Bendy light and magic.

FE VICTORY

Bent light has been disproved. RE Victory.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: I haven't found a theory to explain declination of the sun
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2011, 01:09:44 PM »
Bendy light was never proven to disprove!

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: I haven't found a theory to explain declination of the sun
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2011, 05:10:56 PM »
Bendy light was never proven to disprove!

You dont have to prove something before disproving it, e.g:
Theory: all sharks wear bow ties at all times.
Disproof: I can see a shark without a bow tie on, therefore it is disproved.

However the flattists are fond of non-falsifiable theories which cannot easily be disproved, an example with the shark metaphor would be:
Theory: some sharks wear bow ties some of the time
Attempt at disproof would require being able to observe every shark in the sea for the duration of its lifespan, therefore it is impossible to disprove.

Bent light is however a falsifiable theory and predicts certain visual effects which, if they do not happen, are the equivalent of the non-bow tie wearing shark.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.