Prev: Mainframe Tech Blog
Next: WD 1.10, Variable Length groups and CALL statement
From: Robert on 5 Apr 2008 20:46
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 14:39:44 -0700 (PDT), Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 5 Apr, 04:19, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:53:49 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Robert wrote:

>> Robert: The sun rises in the east.

>> Alistair: I didn't know that until I saw it on the Science Channel.
>>
>
>I don't get the Science Channel. Perhaps you meant Scientific
>American?

Same thing, on paper. :)

When I wrote that in the spirit of fun and ethanol, I deliberately avoided barbed
criticism of those who deserve it.
From: Robert on 8 Apr 2008 22:59
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:29:07 -0700 (PDT), Richard <riplin(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>On Apr 8, 2:11�pm, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote:

>> It's of no use when dealing with integers, because they have no fractional part.
>
>But they do have fractional parts.
>
>If I have my stock valuation total in cents and I have the quantity
>in units then when I divide to find the average cost per unit I have a
>fractional part to deal with. This may be rounded using various
>methods but accounting practice requires this be done in decimal, and
>binary rounding does not give accurate decimal rounding.

An average is an approximation. You're not going to book the number, so accountants don't
care whether it's off by a cent.

I doubt you can find a requirement for decimal arithmetic in IFRS (EU) or FASB (US)
accounting standards. Generally, standards define results and avoid telling you how to
achieve them.

I am very familiar with EDGAR, the US Securities and Exchange Commission database for
electronic filing of mutual fund holdings, and the Thomson CDA/Spectrum Institutional
13(f) Common Stock Holdings and Transactions database. If you go to Yahoo Finance or
similar, pull up a mutual fund and click on Holdings, the numbers you will see came
through those databases and my software. You will not see price per unit, but you will see
the marked to market value of each holding rounded to thousands. The standard for
computing that number says in its entirety:

"You must round entries in Column 4 (Value) to the nearest thousand dollars, and omit the
last three places."
http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edgarfm-vol2-v5.pdf
From: Robert on 8 Apr 2008 23:05
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:09:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard <riplin(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>On Apr 5, 3:19�pm, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote:

>> As a point of interest, if you are standing within 6 km of either pole, you
>> will actually see the sun rise in the west .. once per year.
>>
>
>You seem to have a strange idea about what one sees when within the
>polar areas.

Applying an adjective such as strange without elaboration does not establish the validity
of that adjective.

The Earth rotates counter-clockwise, viewed from the north. That's why the sun rises in
the east in most places. The Earth orbits the sun clockwise. Close to the poles,
rotational effects become insignificant. The Earth's orbit and 22 degree tilt causes
sunrise at the poles. That's why the sun rises in the west there.
From: Rick Smith on 9 Apr 2008 10:16

"Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message
news:r7cov3hfo23jr5q8lrq8tfodrsusrin8vs(a)4ax.com...
[snip]
> The Earth rotates counter-clockwise, viewed from the north. That's why the
sun rises in
> the east in most places. The Earth orbits the sun clockwise.

< http://www.nineplanets.org/overview.html >
"The orbits of the planets are ellipses with the Sun at one focus,
though all except Mercury are very nearly circular. The orbits
of the planets are all more or less in the same plane (called the
ecliptic and defined by the plane of the Earth's orbit). The ecliptic
is inclined only 7 degrees from the plane of the Sun's equator.
The above diagrams show the relative sizes of the orbits of the
eight planets (plus Pluto) from a perspective somewhat above
the ecliptic (hence their non-circular appearance). They all orbit
in the same direction (counter-clockwise looking down from
above the Sun's north pole); all but Venus, Uranus and Pluto
also rotate in that same sense."

-----
To a viewer far above the North Pole of Earth, the planets
would appear to move in a counterclockwise direction.

Encarta� 98 Desk Encyclopedia � & 1996-97 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
-----


From: Robert on 9 Apr 2008 20:19
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 21:41:10 -0700 (PDT), Richard <riplin(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>On Apr 9, 3:05�pm, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:09:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard <rip...(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>> >On Apr 5, 3:19�pm, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote:
>> >> As a point of interest, if you are standing within 6 km of either pole, you
>> >> will actually see the sun rise in the west .. once per year.
>>
>> >You seem to have a strange idea about what one sees when within the
>> >polar areas.
>>
>> Applying an adjective such as strange without elaboration does not establish the validity
>> of that adjective.
>>
>> The Earth rotates counter-clockwise, viewed from the north. That's why the sun rises in
>> the east in most places. The Earth orbits the sun clockwise. Close to the poles,
>> rotational effects become insignificant. The Earth's orbit and 22 degree tilt causes
>> sunrise at the poles. That's why the sun rises in the west there.
>
>That is exactly the sort of 'strange idea' that you seem to have. In
>fact it is completely wrong headed nonsense.
>
>Close to the poles the 'rotational effect' is exactly the same as
>anywhere else: the sun moves at 15 degrees per hour across the sky. It
>happens that at the poles for many months that movement across the sky
>is entirely below the horizon and for many other months it is entirely
>above the horizon.
>
>At some point near the equinox the sun is circling only just below the
>horizon and it completes the circle in 24 hours, at some point it will
>become fractionally visible as a 'sunrise' and this can occur at any
>point on the horizon depending on the relationship between earth's
>orbit and rotation and the height of the observer.
>
>Your claim that it 'rises in the west' may be true for one observer
>one year but false for another some short distance away or standing at
>a different height. It will also vary each year.
>
>If two observers both see the sun's first glimpse at the same time
>they may be on different sides of the pole. One would see it 'in the
>west' and the other 'in the east'. Or possibly 'in the north' and 'in
>the south'.
>
>6 hours later the sun is at a different point of the horizon 90
>degrees away and another observer may see it for the first time.
>
>The sun may also dip back and 24 hours later 'rise' again in a
>somewhat different place and for a slightly longer time while it
>travels along the horizon.

After giving this some thought, I concede you are right. Perhaps these thoughts will shed
more light on the answer.

The key concept is that the number days in a year is not an integer. There are ~365.24
days in a year. Suppose on year one the sun rises at the north pole March 21 (vernal
equinox) on a meridian (line of longitude) that goes through Greenwich, England. On year
two, it will rise six hours later, on a meridian that goes through the US. On year 3, it
will rise on the international date line. On year 4, it will rise on a meridian that goes
through Asia. On year 5, it will rise again almost, but not exactly, on the Greenwich
meridian.

The second concept is the definition of east and west. Conventionally, it is relative to
the observer. That is meaningless at the north pole, where the only direction is south. An
alternative definition is the (Anglo-centric) one of relative to Greenwich, England. If
the sun rises on a US meridian, it can be said to 'rise in the west'; on an Asian
meridian, it 'rises in the east'. What about the other two? Common sense says that if
you're facing north, east is on your right. Thus, the international date line is north and
the Greenwich meridian is south.

I disagree with your assertion that the sun can rise, dip below the horizon, then rise
again the next day. There are three wobbles in the Earth's orbit, called Milancovitch
cycles, whose periods range from 20,000 to 100,000 years. The Earth doesn't wobble and
reverse in one day.

This explanation is from my original thoughts, not gleaned from any website.


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Mainframe Tech Blog
Next: WD 1.10, Variable Length groups and CALL statement