sunrise angle

Hi

Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of
sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on
latitude of the observer i suppose?

many thanks

stew

stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of
> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on
> latitude of the observer i suppose?

Hmmmm. I vaguely remember from long-ago classes that the cosine of the
angle between South and the point of Sunrise/Sunset is equal to:

minus Tan (latitude) * Tan (declination of Sun)

Thirty years ago I managed to prove it after a couple of days of
playing around with 3D spherical trig, but I probably couldn't do it on
a bet now.

FoFP

stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of
> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on
> latitude of the observer i suppose?
>
> many thanks
>
> stew

Set aside your geocentric ways to appreciate the observed local
phenomena for what it actually is -

http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/sunrise-m.jpg

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_p...erminator1.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hterminator_is...

The central parent star has never once risen,what occurs is that your
location is sweeping out of the orbital shadow and through the color
transition at the orbital boundary and into direct solar radiation.It
is the a great point of departure for studying the correlation between
axial and orbital motion for climatology and the annual seasonal cycle
rather than referencing the Sun's arc from horizon to horizon using a
pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt.

Why,after half a millenia after the great working principles for the
Earth's motions emerged,are participants still highly focused on
geocentric terms ?,are the heliocentric working principles not
spectacular enough for people who think astronomy is an exercise in
magnification ?.

stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of
> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on
> latitude of the observer i suppose?

Hmmmm. I vaguely remember from long-ago classes that the cosine of the
angle between South and the point of Sunrise/Sunset is equal to:

minus Tan (latitude) * Tan (declination of Sun)

Thirty years ago I managed to prove it after a couple of days of
playing around with 3D spherical trig, but I probably couldn't do it on
a bet now.

FoFP

oriel36 wrote:
> stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of
>> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on
>> latitude of the observer i suppose?
>>
>> many thanks
>>
>> stew
>
> Set aside your geocentric ways to appreciate the observed local
> phenomena for what it actually is -
>
> http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/sunrise-m.jpg
>
> http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_p...erminator1.JPG
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hterminator_is...
>
>
> The central parent star has never once risen,what occurs is that your
> location is sweeping out of the orbital shadow and through the color
> transition at the orbital boundary and into direct solar radiation.It
> is the a great point of departure for studying the correlation between
> axial and orbital motion for climatology and the annual seasonal cycle
> rather than referencing the Sun's arc from horizon to horizon using a
> pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt.
>
> Why,after half a millenia after the great working principles for the
> Earth's motions emerged,are participants still highly focused on
> geocentric terms ?,are the heliocentric working principles not
> spectacular enough for people who think astronomy is an exercise in
> magnification ?.
>

Give the original poster a break and stop posting your crap.

John.

stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of
> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on
> latitude of the observer i suppose?
>
> many thanks
>
> stew

Set aside your geocentric ways to appreciate the observed local
phenomena for what it actually is -

http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/sunrise-m.jpg

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_p...erminator1.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hterminator_is...

The central parent star has never once risen,what occurs is that your
location is sweeping out of the orbital shadow and through the color
transition at the orbital boundary and into direct solar radiation.It
is the a great point of departure for studying the correlation between
axial and orbital motion for climatology and the annual seasonal cycle
rather than referencing the Sun's arc from horizon to horizon using a
pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt.

Why,after half a millenia after the great working principles for the
Earth's motions emerged,are participants still highly focused on
geocentric terms ?,are the heliocentric working principles not
spectacular enough for people who think astronomy is an exercise in
magnification ?.

oriel36 wrote:
> stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of
>> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on
>> latitude of the observer i suppose?
>>
>> many thanks
>>
>> stew
>
> Set aside your geocentric ways to appreciate the observed local
> phenomena for what it actually is -
>
> http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/sunrise-m.jpg
>
> http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_p...erminator1.JPG
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hterminator_is...
>
>
> The central parent star has never once risen,what occurs is that your
> location is sweeping out of the orbital shadow and through the color
> transition at the orbital boundary and into direct solar radiation.It
> is the a great point of departure for studying the correlation between
> axial and orbital motion for climatology and the annual seasonal cycle
> rather than referencing the Sun's arc from horizon to horizon using a
> pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt.
>
> Why,after half a millenia after the great working principles for the
> Earth's motions emerged,are participants still highly focused on
> geocentric terms ?,are the heliocentric working principles not
> spectacular enough for people who think astronomy is an exercise in
> magnification ?.
>

Give the original poster a break and stop posting your crap.

John.

stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of
> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on
> latitude of the observer i suppose?
>
> many thanks
>
> stew

If you want to do these yourself, I suggest the book Astronomical
Algorithms by Jean Meeus:

http://www.willbell.com/math/mc1.htm

If you just want the results, download any of the freeware planetarium
programs such as Skycharts:

http://www.stargazing.net/astropc/

The commercial Skymap Pro used to also have a free demo version that
would do what you want. I don'y know if they still provide a demo
version though.

BTW ignore anything from Oriel. He's either a total fruitloop or some
sort of posting bot.

Bill

stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of
> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on
> latitude of the observer i suppose?
>
> many thanks
>
> stew

If you want to do these yourself, I suggest the book Astronomical
Algorithms by Jean Meeus:

http://www.willbell.com/math/mc1.htm

If you just want the results, download any of the freeware planetarium
programs such as Skycharts:

http://www.stargazing.net/astropc/

The commercial Skymap Pro used to also have a free demo version that
would do what you want. I don'y know if they still provide a demo
version though.

BTW ignore anything from Oriel. He's either a total fruitloop or some
sort of posting bot.

Bill

John wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of
> >> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on
> >> latitude of the observer i suppose?
> >>
> >> many thanks
> >>
> >> stew
> >
> > Set aside your geocentric ways to appreciate the observed local
> > phenomena for what it actually is -
> >
> > http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/sunrise-m.jpg
> >
> > http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_p...erminator1.JPG
> >
> > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hterminator_is...
> >
> >
> > The central parent star has never once risen,what occurs is that your
> > location is sweeping out of the orbital shadow and through the color
> > transition at the orbital boundary and into direct solar radiation.It
> > is the a great point of departure for studying the correlation between
> > axial and orbital motion for climatology and the annual seasonal cycle
> > rather than referencing the Sun's arc from horizon to horizon using a
> > pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt.
> >
> > Why,after half a millenia after the great working principles for the
> > Earth's motions emerged,are participants still highly focused on
> > geocentric terms ?,are the heliocentric working principles not
> > spectacular enough for people who think astronomy is an exercise in
> > magnification ?.
> >
>
> Give the original poster a break and stop posting your crap.
>
> John.

Another sub-geocentric apologist or rather a celestial sphere geometer
adherent.

Tell me,discovering that your Ra/Dec system which qualifies the Earth's
motions using the return of a star to a location requires an additional
day every 4th year to keep ticking over,how does it feel to know that
you join the creationists in the astronomical cartoon version of
heliocentric astronomy ?.

I am sorry that you are not an astronomer and do not feel the remorse
at the temporary destruction of the great work of the pre-Copernican
and heliocentric astronomers for astrological celestial sphere geometry
with all its 'predictive' qualities.Let me show you what it looks
like -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

Every star in that animation will return to a location in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds but requires a calendar cycle of 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days to work.Humanity is in big,big trouble
considering the late 17th century creation by Flamsteed was allowed to
snowball for centuries.

John wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of
> >> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on
> >> latitude of the observer i suppose?
> >>
> >> many thanks
> >>
> >> stew
> >
> > Set aside your geocentric ways to appreciate the observed local
> > phenomena for what it actually is -
> >
> > http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/sunrise-m.jpg
> >
> > http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_p...erminator1.JPG
> >
> > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hterminator_is...
> >
> >
> > The central parent star has never once risen,what occurs is that your
> > location is sweeping out of the orbital shadow and through the color
> > transition at the orbital boundary and into direct solar radiation.It
> > is the a great point of departure for studying the correlation between
> > axial and orbital motion for climatology and the annual seasonal cycle
> > rather than referencing the Sun's arc from horizon to horizon using a
> > pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt.
> >
> > Why,after half a millenia after the great working principles for the
> > Earth's motions emerged,are participants still highly focused on
> > geocentric terms ?,are the heliocentric working principles not
> > spectacular enough for people who think astronomy is an exercise in
> > magnification ?.
> >
>
> Give the original poster a break and stop posting your crap.
>
> John.

Another sub-geocentric apologist or rather a celestial sphere geometer
adherent.

Tell me,discovering that your Ra/Dec system which qualifies the Earth's
motions using the return of a star to a location requires an additional
day every 4th year to keep ticking over,how does it feel to know that
you join the creationists in the astronomical cartoon version of
heliocentric astronomy ?.

I am sorry that you are not an astronomer and do not feel the remorse
at the temporary destruction of the great work of the pre-Copernican
and heliocentric astronomers for astrological celestial sphere geometry
with all its 'predictive' qualities.Let me show you what it looks
like -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

Every star in that animation will return to a location in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds but requires a calendar cycle of 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days to work.Humanity is in big,big trouble
considering the late 17th century creation by Flamsteed was allowed to
snowball for centuries.

In message <w22sh.88038$493.49801@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John
<me@virgin.net> writes
>oriel36 wrote:

Nothing.

Please everyone, don't respond AT ALL to this bot, or kook, or whatever
it is.

In message <w22sh.88038$493.49801@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John
<me@virgin.net> writes
>oriel36 wrote:

Nothing.

Please everyone, don't respond AT ALL to this bot, or kook, or whatever
it is.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message <w22sh.88038$493.49801@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John
> <me@virgin.net> writes
> >oriel36 wrote:
>
> Nothing.
>
> Please everyone, don't respond AT ALL to this bot, or kook, or whatever
> it is.

Climatological considerations and especially the very visible extreme
meteorological events occuring presently would normally generate
intense discussion here as global climate conditions are a direct
result of the Earth's motions in solar radiation.

The original poster is still using a system based on the pseudo-dynamic
of variable axial tilt which in turn is used as the basic working
principle for climatology.A neccessary astronomical modification is
required to expunge the correlation between axial tilt to the Sun in
creating hemispsherical weather patterns (seasons) and replace it with
a more focused view of the Earth's axial and orbital motions in solar
radiation.

http://www.climateprediction.net/ima...ges/annual.gif

The oscillation of temperature bands is primarily due to the length of
time a given latitudinal location spends in direct solar radiation and
in the Earth's orbital shadow.This global view of climate allows a
clear distinction between cause and effect insofar as global climate
sets the conditions for meteorological patterns whereas the present
view,taken directly from De Revolutionibus chapt 11, imposes a
hemispherical view on climate through a pseudo-dynamic of variable
axial tilt.

The great astronomers could make insightful conclusions based on taking
the Earth's motions into account,contemporary astronomers with actual
images of the Earth from space before them are supposed to do the same
thing,at least for climatological purposes.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message <w22sh.88038$493.49801@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John
> <me@virgin.net> writes
> >oriel36 wrote:
>
> Nothing.
>
> Please everyone, don't respond AT ALL to this bot, or kook, or whatever
> it is.

Climatological considerations and especially the very visible extreme
meteorological events occuring presently would normally generate
intense discussion here as global climate conditions are a direct
result of the Earth's motions in solar radiation.

The original poster is still using a system based on the pseudo-dynamic
of variable axial tilt which in turn is used as the basic working
principle for climatology.A neccessary astronomical modification is
required to expunge the correlation between axial tilt to the Sun in
creating hemispsherical weather patterns (seasons) and replace it with
a more focused view of the Earth's axial and orbital motions in solar
radiation.

http://www.climateprediction.net/ima...ges/annual.gif

The oscillation of temperature bands is primarily due to the length of
time a given latitudinal location spends in direct solar radiation and
in the Earth's orbital shadow.This global view of climate allows a
clear distinction between cause and effect insofar as global climate
sets the conditions for meteorological patterns whereas the present
view,taken directly from De Revolutionibus chapt 11, imposes a
hemispherical view on climate through a pseudo-dynamic of variable
axial tilt.

The great astronomers could make insightful conclusions based on taking
the Earth's motions into account,contemporary astronomers with actual
images of the Earth from space before them are supposed to do the same
thing,at least for climatological purposes.

	#1
stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk	sunrise angle Hi Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on latitude of the observer i suppose? many thanks stew

	#2
M Holmes	Re: sunrise angle stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote: > Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of > sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on > latitude of the observer i suppose? Hmmmm. I vaguely remember from long-ago classes that the cosine of the angle between South and the point of Sunrise/Sunset is equal to: minus Tan (latitude) * Tan (declination of Sun) Thirty years ago I managed to prove it after a couple of days of playing around with 3D spherical trig, but I probably couldn't do it on a bet now. FoFP

	#3
oriel36	Re: sunrise angle stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote: > Hi > > Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of > sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on > latitude of the observer i suppose? > > many thanks > > stew Set aside your geocentric ways to appreciate the observed local phenomena for what it actually is - http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/sunrise-m.jpg http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_p...erminator1.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hterminator_is... The central parent star has never once risen,what occurs is that your location is sweeping out of the orbital shadow and through the color transition at the orbital boundary and into direct solar radiation.It is the a great point of departure for studying the correlation between axial and orbital motion for climatology and the annual seasonal cycle rather than referencing the Sun's arc from horizon to horizon using a pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt. Why,after half a millenia after the great working principles for the Earth's motions emerged,are participants still highly focused on geocentric terms ?,are the heliocentric working principles not spectacular enough for people who think astronomy is an exercise in magnification ?.

	#5
John	Re: sunrise angle oriel36 wrote: > stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote: >> Hi >> >> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of >> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on >> latitude of the observer i suppose? >> >> many thanks >> >> stew > > Set aside your geocentric ways to appreciate the observed local > phenomena for what it actually is - > > http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/sunrise-m.jpg > > http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_p...erminator1.JPG > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hterminator_is... > > > The central parent star has never once risen,what occurs is that your > location is sweeping out of the orbital shadow and through the color > transition at the orbital boundary and into direct solar radiation.It > is the a great point of departure for studying the correlation between > axial and orbital motion for climatology and the annual seasonal cycle > rather than referencing the Sun's arc from horizon to horizon using a > pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt. > > Why,after half a millenia after the great working principles for the > Earth's motions emerged,are participants still highly focused on > geocentric terms ?,are the heliocentric working principles not > spectacular enough for people who think astronomy is an exercise in > magnification ?. > Give the original poster a break and stop posting your crap. John.

	#8
bill.m.thomas@gmail.com	Re: sunrise angle stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote: > Hi > > Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of > sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on > latitude of the observer i suppose? > > many thanks > > stew If you want to do these yourself, I suggest the book Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus: http://www.willbell.com/math/mc1.htm If you just want the results, download any of the freeware planetarium programs such as Skycharts: http://www.stargazing.net/astropc/ The commercial Skymap Pro used to also have a free demo version that would do what you want. I don'y know if they still provide a demo version though. BTW ignore anything from Oriel. He's either a total fruitloop or some sort of posting bot. Bill

	#10
oriel36	Re: sunrise angle John wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > stewart_bristol@hotmail.co.uk wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> Can anybody please direct me towards calculations of the direction of > >> sunrise/set, moonrise/set ant different times of the year (based on > >> latitude of the observer i suppose? > >> > >> many thanks > >> > >> stew > > > > Set aside your geocentric ways to appreciate the observed local > > phenomena for what it actually is - > > > > http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/sunrise-m.jpg > > > > http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_p...erminator1.JPG > > > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hterminator_is... > > > > > > The central parent star has never once risen,what occurs is that your > > location is sweeping out of the orbital shadow and through the color > > transition at the orbital boundary and into direct solar radiation.It > > is the a great point of departure for studying the correlation between > > axial and orbital motion for climatology and the annual seasonal cycle > > rather than referencing the Sun's arc from horizon to horizon using a > > pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt. > > > > Why,after half a millenia after the great working principles for the > > Earth's motions emerged,are participants still highly focused on > > geocentric terms ?,are the heliocentric working principles not > > spectacular enough for people who think astronomy is an exercise in > > magnification ?. > > > > Give the original poster a break and stop posting your crap. > > John. Another sub-geocentric apologist or rather a celestial sphere geometer adherent. Tell me,discovering that your Ra/Dec system which qualifies the Earth's motions using the return of a star to a location requires an additional day every 4th year to keep ticking over,how does it feel to know that you join the creationists in the astronomical cartoon version of heliocentric astronomy ?. I am sorry that you are not an astronomer and do not feel the remorse at the temporary destruction of the great work of the pre-Copernican and heliocentric astronomers for astrological celestial sphere geometry with all its 'predictive' qualities.Let me show you what it looks like - http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif Every star in that animation will return to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds but requires a calendar cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days to work.Humanity is in big,big trouble considering the late 17th century creation by Flamsteed was allowed to snowball for centuries.

	#12
Jonathan Silverlight	Re: sunrise angle In message <w22sh.88038$493.49801@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John <me@virgin.net> writes >oriel36 wrote: Nothing. Please everyone, don't respond AT ALL to this bot, or kook, or whatever it is.

	#14
oriel36	Re: sunrise angle Jonathan Silverlight wrote: > In message <w22sh.88038$493.49801@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John > <me@virgin.net> writes > >oriel36 wrote: > > Nothing. > > Please everyone, don't respond AT ALL to this bot, or kook, or whatever > it is. Climatological considerations and especially the very visible extreme meteorological events occuring presently would normally generate intense discussion here as global climate conditions are a direct result of the Earth's motions in solar radiation. The original poster is still using a system based on the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt which in turn is used as the basic working principle for climatology.A neccessary astronomical modification is required to expunge the correlation between axial tilt to the Sun in creating hemispsherical weather patterns (seasons) and replace it with a more focused view of the Earth's axial and orbital motions in solar radiation. http://www.climateprediction.net/ima...ges/annual.gif The oscillation of temperature bands is primarily due to the length of time a given latitudinal location spends in direct solar radiation and in the Earth's orbital shadow.This global view of climate allows a clear distinction between cause and effect insofar as global climate sets the conditions for meteorological patterns whereas the present view,taken directly from De Revolutionibus chapt 11, imposes a hemispherical view on climate through a pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt. The great astronomers could make insightful conclusions based on taking the Earth's motions into account,contemporary astronomers with actual images of the Earth from space before them are supposed to do the same thing,at least for climatological purposes.