Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course it does.
That's exactly what I did.. Why are you confused?
And personal attacks on people are also against CF rules.. If one donates money to the site do the rules still apply in the same way?
No it doesn't, as making shots at people rather than dealing with the concept or content as it concerns astronomy does not deal with
Incorrect (again) as wrangling on comments about bright colors isn't the same as dealing with the content respectfully.
Indeed - which is why it was asked for you to cease with it and not be off topic when entering into a thread.
Nothing said was inaccurate when context was addressed - and the issue, as stated in the OP, was sharing on why they felt a model was the best one (Which you didn't) and addressing in context what other models were for. If you cannot remain respectful in conversation, there's no need for you being here when you didn't deal at all with actual science which has not been against revolving through the galaxy.
The content isn't respectful from a science point.. it's more like a Bug's Bunny cartoon designed to dazzle the scientifically uneducated.
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
I didn't show that stellar wind in unrelated to the issue?
What direction do you think the interstellar wind is coming from then?
You again haven't been addressing science - and as said before, arguments of appeal to emotion are not even remotely the same as dealing with a model. It's like saying "Capitalism can work in small nations" And giving a response like "You think capitalism can work? I guess you also think monkeys can fly too!!!!" - it doesn't show you have any awareness of a model or the issue and have to resort to caricatures rather than serious addressment since the video was not even about the sun corkscrewing through the galaxy and other astrophysicists have said the same thing when it comes to the galaxy revolving even as planets orbit. What you've done so far neither shows you're actually scientifically educated or able to deal with discussion without resorting to emotional appeals as if that's in any way academic.
Again, please show and verify - as you brought it up - that Solar Wind only comes from Scoripus and that it does not change direction in where it came from. That was the issue you brought up when it came to others noting solar wind changes in its origins and that shows that our system is moving. I already discussed where solar wind was coming from and referenced - so again, is that going to be addresessed or not?
And other physicists have noted differently as it concerns changing directions:
I think I am going to withdraw from this discussion, with a couple of final remarks:
You made two different statements and avoided when someone noted "What you said here in your statement is what the focus was." This is also goes in regards to when someone says directly the focus on a thread is on discussing differing models - so again, being obtuse on the issue is what it appears like when one cannot acknowledge what another already noted with mountains made into molehills. The discussion was about discussing the validity of the helic model and seeing it in context - and the video itself was also focused on that context. If the goal was to understand, you had several opportunities and did not deal with them. Clarity was given, so address it.
Red herring is not necessary in a discussion, as no one is hostile. When someone says they are not going to repeat something, it is stating a matter of fact as it concerns not going out of the way to re-state the same thing that was said before. If someone says the focus of a thread is discussing the Helic model and its validity - and you say you want more clarity when someone already offered it - it comes off obtuse as in being slow to understand or do simple things that help in your understanding. I did not say you did not want to understand, as what was noted was that there was seeming to not be a willingness to deal with what was already stated and thus limiting understanding.
Again, this is largely irrelevant to the OP when it comes to the issue of where others choose to hear what they wish and many have noted how often the same thing said in one context is understood fully because others already had interest/wanted to discuss, whereas others not wanting to listen (and already being committed to another view) tend to hear what they desire. You already came into discussion saying you wanted to believe in anything opposite of the Helic model and were not convinced. Thus, there was no need asking for clarity when you had a prior assumption - and as you did not deal with the video, discussion is a mutual conversation. It is not upon a writer to bear the brunt of all understanding for a reader. Thus far, you have declined to listen to what was actually read - and avoided when clarity was given. It'd behoove you to understand the reality of taking ownership.
Of course.
Forthcoming responses were already given, although the validity of the noting appreciation is questioned since one does not need to go out of the way to give comments that are akin to accusations when there is no acknowledgement of what was already said. This leads to the impression that it is really you rather than others offended - and that's fine. One can simply be transparent on it.
The animations were never meant to be representative of all moments - although he was able to make an updated video on the issue you're bringing up.
True, they should include that, given the point of the thread is that using the Sun as a reference point on the movement of our solar system isn't accurate, they they should be as accurate as possible.As long as we're quibbling......
Shouldn't the sun itself be moving in a tiny bit of a corkscrew pattern related to it orbiting around the center of mass of the solar system? It's a point located inside of the sun, so it's small and difficult to see, but as long as we're complaining.....
Looking at all these videos and trying to wrap my head around the motion of the planets as we follow the sun through it's path got me thinking. Now I cannot figure something out.
Maybe you can help.
Let's break the orbit of the earth around the sun into a basic stationary sun with a flat circular orbit of the earth around that sun.
Now, on the first day of summer, at noon, we face the sun full on.
The earth rotates once every 24 hours
The earth orbits the sun once every year.
So, here is the dilemma. If we are facing straight toward the sun at noon on the summer solstice, will we not be facing directly away from the sun exactly one half year from then? We rotate once per day, that doesn't change. So, every 24 hours we will be facing the same direction in space. However, when it is winter, facing the same way will have us facing away from the sun at what should be noon.
In the diagram below, the earth middle right, the US and Canada faces toward us with the sun to the left. One half year later, the US and Canada face toward us with the sun on our right. Rotating once every 24 hours means that our clocks would continually change or it would be totally dark at noon every half year.
Can someone explain this?
So, what you are saying is that we say the earth rotates once per 24 hours, by our clocks and time pieces, but it actually rotates once per every 23 hours and 56 minutes.
This would still not help. The length of orbit in days is mute...
