michel123456

I take that back too. ------------------- You have just proven that you won't make a step back on your argumentation just because that's the way you are and you will never change. That is exactly what you accuse people that you are ready to ridiculize. Now you are the ridicule. ------------------ Of course I ment "your argument is ridicule" but you agreed previously that it doesn't matter, it's about the same. Didn't you?

Can we conclude from this that distance to the Sun has no influence on temperatures?

Found this from here Note: at sunset, the Sun does not hit the horizon. The horizon is getting up and hits the Sun. The next time you observe the sunset, put in your mind that the Sun is fixed and that you are a passenger on an immense spaceship: the Earth.

You're correct, I take my words back. Between your 31000 posts here and there you have followed creationists presentations. But then I understand less than ever your POV. Yes, we agree on that. Fine. We can disagree on this and continue our lives like that. No problem.

Very impressive. How did you do that?

I learned about the teapot, thanks. But it is referenced in the Wiki article together with the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as religion-parodying forms. Not science. From wiki So that's about religion.

Ha, yes. The end of the video is superb too. "and that's it?" "yes, that's it" The video ends and nobody understand nothing.

Now you are entering science by the wrong door. IMHO you should keep your enthusiasm to learn some basic physics. You may find it in your school books you weren't interested in, or in future courses, or over the Net (that's much more difficult because you'll need advice). Your question was the same as Newton posed to himself: why does the Moon not collide with the Earth? Or "why does the Moon not fall upon the Earth?" His answer was outstanding: the Moon indeed falls constantly upon the Earth. So, why do they not collide? That is because the Moon constantly miss the Earth. The path of the Moon missing the Earth is called its orbit. See the wiki article about orbit. Don't miss Newton's canon ball. The night falls faster when the angle at which the Sun touches the horizon is closed to the perpendicular. That happens at low latitudes (the tropics). (edit. I have to check that, not so sure if it is correct after all...) I guess it varies throughout the year.

No, its the other way round. Obviously you have never followed a presentation from creationists. If you take some time enduring this, you will understand that derision and ridicule is their most effective weapon. They don't use science, they use arguments based on "common sense" like Paley's watch saying "yoho scientists wake up, look around you we are more complicated than a watch so it proves that blahblahblah!" and that's it. Not that I agree with them but you must learn to know your ennemy. You must know that science has nothing to do with "common sense" and that in many case science is exactly the contrary of "common sense". Look at Newton's laws of motion as a simple example. I mean, as i stated before, the use of ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. When you use it you stop acting like a scientist.

It is not true and it is provable. In this diagram, time is upright, space is horizontal. Point A is where you are. Point B is outside your light cone, you cannot see point B. Point C (event C) is at the intersection of both light cones, which means that point C is gravitationaly connected to points A & B. If point B came to magically disappear you would see an influence on point C. The same upon a stolen diagram from Ned Wright's tutorial page. Of course the life line of B crosses our light cone, which means we are observing B's past. But that is another story.

Baric is improving. I disagree because a nut don't produce rubbish, it is an ecological product. I am. Agree Going to bed now.

Yes. When you look at the solar system sideways, as you said, you are in the ecliptic plane. The wiki article is a bit complicated IMHO. The important thing is: That is the angle you may notice on a terrestrial globe. I am not sure. That is what i recall. Some other member may answer that. The orbit of the Earth is not circular. It is an ellipse. But it is an ellipse looking-like-circle, with small eccentricity. So the distance Earth Sun changes. Above that, the path of the Earth is altered by the Moon. Actually it is the center of gravity of the Earth-Moon system that follows an elliptical orbit. This center , the barycenter, is somewhere inside the Earth, but not at its center. And there must exist other alterations I am not aware of.

I googled crying cow boy and got 16.800.000 answers.

I would like to add that I like very much when disagreeing politely with someone. Orgasm. And there is nothing more boring than agreeing constantly. For that, thank you Inow, although you don't like being polite since it seems lowering your machismo.

Woaw this thread was going too fast for me. It is the first time IIRC that 2 teams arose from a discussion. Usually it is all against one. Memorable.

Another one for Appolinaria. "Can you laugh of the misfortune of the other? It depends. If the misfortune is funny, yes you can." -Philippe Geluck. ------------------ @Inow. It is not a question of hypocrisy, it is a question of putting the other one in a situation where he gets mad. My rule number one: never do to anyone what you don't want to happen to you. I broke rule #1 in precedent post: I am too sarcastic as it seems. Sorry.

I didn't say the contrary. It is a good thing from the moment we understand profoundly that it is a limited view. Think about it twice. You agree that we don't currently see most of the events which have happened in the universe, but that causes no trouble to your scientific conscience. Think that all the small points pictured on the first diagram are gravitationaly connected to the few we see in the empty picture by a mesh of cones emanating from each one of them. An observer on any of these points sees another universe than ours, at the exception of a few objects at the intersection of his cone and ours. He sees planets and galaxies that we may never see in all humanity. Planets & stars that exist but that we cannot see. Doesn't that blow your mind?

Good question, what do you mean with "everything"? Every event that happened at any time at any place? I guess it would be a very blurred image. That would change the angle of the cone. With SOL infinite the cone would be flat as a disk and we would observe the present time. all the rest would still be invisible. And for SOL equal to zero, the cone would transform into a line and we would observe ourself in our past only. Again, all the rest would be invisible. Exactly. You cannot see your own past because your past lies INSIDE the light cone. You cannot look at your hands in the future because that is OUTSIDE of the light cone. An observer in the future can look at you (smile), the same as we are looking to the past. But you can't see him.

Does summer coincide with the point of least distance onto the orbit?

That is not the point. Angry or disappointed, who cares. The fact is that we see only a small part of the Universe. The Universe is the first full picture. What we see is the empty picture. Or, to say it otherwise, a large part of the Universe is there in front of our eyes but we cannot see it.

So you feel fine with my empty diagram.

Ophiolite, you are ridicule.

So nobody seems really impressed by the fact (I see that as a fact) that we are looking at a small part of the big picture. We can open our eyes wide, create new telescopes, invent new technology, but what we can see is restricted by the laws of physics. And although we know there are things outside of reach (see the first diagram), we are still searching...

The last was the method choosen by Galileo to ridiculize the Pope. He realized his tactical error too late, through the trial. Of course the sentence transformed him into a heroe for history because he was right, but I doubt his goal was to be persecuted in order to sell his book. IMHO it was an error.

@Inow. I know you from many funny, sarcatic and knowledgeable posts. But not anyone has your intelligence. Most of the people who know absolutely nothing about nothing have only one weapon: ridicule. So to me ridicule is a mark of ignorance, not of knowledge. This is an excellent movie (won many awards). "Ridicule"