Our Sun

[UltraBudgie]

If we've landed men on the moon I think it's only fair that we move on to landing women on the sun.

[BeyondKnowledge]

AI:

"The Earth's rotational speed varies depending on the latitude. 

 
No it doesn't. It is a constant 15 degrees per hour or 1 revolution per day.

Just as the rotation of a wheel is constant but the surface speed is different from near the axis to near the circumference. 

Stating the surface of the Earth as going different speeds just shows the clankers lack of understand the question and the measurement for the answer. 

By that reasoning, when you stand up perfectly still, your feet are going slower than your head. Have you been stretched out of existence recently?

[BeyondKnowledge]

Bravo and thanks for contributing with highly likely explanations as to why the Inuit claim the sun sits higher in the sky now and didn't before.

Okay, I'll be adding sun stuff here and there going forward.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...3863_n.jpg]

I thought that what is seen on the horizon was actually below the horizon was common knowledge. 

The distortion increases the closer to the horizon an object looks to be. That is why most astronomical observations are done within 45 degrees of straight up at the observers location. The atmosphere being looked through is much thinner in that area. Looking up is like looking through a clear orange peel straight through. Looking at the horizon is like looking through it edge on.

They don't teach much in schools anymore it seems.

[rickymouse]

 
No it doesn't. It is a constant 15 degrees per hour or 1 revolution per day.

Just as the rotation of a wheel is constant but the surface speed is different from near the axis to near the circumference. 

Stating the surface of the Earth as going different speeds just shows the clankers lack of understand the question and the measurement for the answer. 

By that reasoning, when you stand up perfectly still, your feet are going slower than your head. Have you been stretched out of existence recently?

The miles per hour a person would travel at the north pole is a lot less than the miles per hour they travel on the ground at the equator.  Think of it, if the earth turns on the axis at the equator in one day, it is a lot of miles, at a mile from the north geological north pole, you are traveling at what....maybe five miles per hour.....not taking into consideration how fast we are flying around the sun in our anual orbit or the distance the sun travels per hour around the galaxy.  This only applies to the speed within our biodome.  I wonder if we would feel tipsy if we were to experience the lessening of the speed  in mph if we didn't acclimate to it by changing speed so fast?

If the earth stopped for an instant at the north pole, a person would fall over, Just think how far you would fly at the equator.

Think of a snowmobile transmission  that regulates speed, vairiable pully and belt system.

[BeyondKnowledge]

The miles per hour a person would travel at the north pole is a lot less than the miles per hour they travel on the ground at the equator.  Think of it, if the earth turns on the axis at the equator in one day, it is a lot of miles, at a mile from the north geological north pole, you are traveling at what....maybe five miles per hour.....not taking into consideration how fast we are flying around the sun in our anual orbit or the distance the sun travels per hour around the galaxy.  This only applies to the speed within our biodome.  I wonder if we would feel tipsy if we were to experience the lessening of the speed  in mph if we didn't acclimate to it by changing speed so fast?

If the earth stopped for an instant at the north pole, a person would fall over, Just think how far you would fly at the equator.

Think of a snowmobile transmission  that regulates speed, vairiable pully and belt system.

Actually you would not even know it if you were very far from ether pole if the Earth suddenly stopped rotating. You would be smeared along the ground by any loose objects that the air could rip away from the surface or from the objects own momentum. Also the oceans would keep going for a time and wipe the smears away. 

Rotation measurement is in revolutions per time. In your example of a variable pitch drive, only the rpm and diameter ratio is used for the calculations. How fast the outer diameter is going is not a consideration.

As for Earth, you would have to calculate everywhere you wanted to figure out the speed of based on distance from the axis. The poles start at zero.  The further from the poles the farther from the axis, the faster that point is going. Also the higher any mountain, the faster. Any estimate of actual speed of part of the surface of the Earth is not very accurate because of these variables. 

That's why 15 degrees per hour or 1 revolution per day is best for expressing it. That applies to the entire planet. A telescope on a properly aligned equatorial mount driven at that speed keeps tracking where it is pointed in the sky no matter where you set it up. You do have to reverse the drive for North or South of the equator.

[quintessentone]

I thought that what is seen on the horizon was actually below the horizon was common knowledge. 

The distortion increases the closer to the horizon an object looks to be. That is why most astronomical observations are done within 45 degrees of straight up at the observers location. The atmosphere being looked through is much thinner in that area. Looking up is like looking through a clear orange peel straight through. Looking at the horizon is like looking through it edge on.

They don't teach much in schools anymore it seems.

It's only common knowledge to those studying it. I started this thread's subject about our sun, not about Earth's rotation or wobble or tile, so some of us need to catch up to get up to speed.

As for the Inuit elders and their belief that the Earth's axis has shifted, well does it not stand to reason that they would have taken refraction into account, but still insist a shift or wobble has occurred? So something has occurred as far as they are concerned, and they think it's an Earth wobble and informed NASA.

This is how science replied:

"On April 20, 2011, CNN News reported that an earthquake moved the main island of Japan by 8 feet and shifted the Earth on its axis. They quoted Kenneth Hudnut, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey, as saying, "At this point, we know that one GPS station moved (8 feet), and we have seen a map from GSI (Geospatial Information Authority) in Japan showing the pattern of shift over a large area is consistent with about that much shift of the land mass."
 They quoted the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Italy, that estimated that "the 8.9-magnitude quake shifted the planet on its axis by nearly 4 inches (10 centimeters)." Astronomers concur that there has not been a shift in the earth's rotational axis, but that there have been subtle polar shifts over the last ten years. This is a change in what is called the figure axis.
These changes are caused by continental drift, which has been shifting the location of the North Pole towards the south about 10 cms per year for the last 100 years. Teams at the University of Texas using NASA's GRACE satellite found that the North Pole's normal drifting to the south changed in 2005 and since then, the drift has been eastward. They detected a 1.2 meter change from 2005 to 2013. They conclude that the shift is caused by climate change caused by global warming.

Inuit elders tell NASA Earth axis shifted - The Watchers

[quintessentone]

I like our Sun.  Its having its solar maximum, and I think we can say there a weakened magnetic field now. This cycle is more active with Aurora. 

Twice now we've had a pale mauve marine layer. Light pollution and clouds make it suck to photograph, but its there. We're are 32° and this one was clearly seen to 13°.  

 Its weird. These things are ranked by a metric called Distrubances Storm Time (DST) in nano teslas (nT). May 2024 was either -412 nT or -518 nT depending on source. And The Carrington Event was -1760 nT. 

Yesterday's was peaked near -240 nT making it the 5th strongest of this cycle.  Or 3rd strongest event over multiple days. 

99% of G4 Severe conditions. Supposedly not as strong, but i am starting two give attention to the upcoming pole shift hypothesis, because weaker storms are sending aurora further south then any time in memory. 

The numbers seem too low and the effect too great as even compared to 1989 or 2003. 

You'll know an actual pole shift is coming when the aurora keeps drifting further south outside of predicted visability models, and no one really pays attention to why.

ESA say 5% decrease in magnetosphere strength per decade after losing 15% in 150 years. 

https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observi...ive_shield

I've just spent my second night with clear skies looking for the aurora, and nadda.   But I'm watching the sun rise and it's beautiful.

As for the sun having it's solar maximum, I follow Stefan Burns, Geophysicist, and he is now heading into what I can only describe as a solar maximum Earth doom porn stage, saying that all of Earth will be electrified so protect yourself. I haven't watched it yet because it just seems over the top, just like watching Avi Loeb talk about 3i Atlas revving up it's engines. I may have to watch both to get the other over the top perspectives (maybe).

Thanks for contributing here IdeomotorPrisoner, it's always nice having common interests with other members here.

Why do you think Earth's magnetic field must be weakened when the explanation can be simply the sun is at it's solar maximum?

[quintessentone]

Another chance for some of you to see the aurora borealis over the night of the 3rd into the early morning of the 4th, but not for me, as usual.

"Aurora Viewing December 3 2025
The aurora borealis is expected to be visible on December 3, 2025, following a G2 – Moderate geomagnetic storm watch. This event is associated with a coronal mass ejection (CME) from Active Region 4299 on December 1, 2025. The storm is anticipated to cause visible auroras at mid-latitudes, with visibility extending to regions such as the northern United States, southern Canada, and northern and central Europe. The most intense phase of the disturbance is expected to occur during the night of December 3 into early December 4, depending on the CME’s arrival and the orientation of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF)."

[Maxmars]

Another chance for some of you to see the aurora borealis over the night of the 3rd into the early morning of the 4th, but not for me, as usual.

"Aurora Viewing December 3 2025
The aurora borealis is expected to be visible on December 3, 2025, following a G2 – Moderate geomagnetic storm watch. This event is associated with a coronal mass ejection (CME) from Active Region 4299 on December 1, 2025. The storm is anticipated to cause visible auroras at mid-latitudes, with visibility extending to regions such as the northern United States, southern Canada, and northern and central Europe. The most intense phase of the disturbance is expected to occur during the night of December 3 into early December 4, depending on the CME’s arrival and the orientation of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF)."

Thank you for relaying the head's up!  

Of course... I won't get to see it... it will be cloudy... there will be light pollution, I'm too far south,....

I tell you it's a conspiracy.... I'm starting to think all this aurora borealis stuff is a psyop!

[quintessentone]

Thank you for relaying the head's up!  

Of course... I won't get to see it... it will be cloudy... there will be light pollution, I'm too far south,....

I tell you it's a conspiracy.... I'm starting to think all this aurora borealis stuff is a psyop!

LOL Here's the next best thing.

LIVE HUGE CRAZY G5 Solar Storm Northern Lights RIGHT NOW! December 3 2025