Talk:Culmination

Proposed merge of Upper and Lower Culmination

Agree - One article can cover all the material, and it is better to keep it together.--mikeu 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -- Culmination covers both upper and lower culmination. Traffic here is low. I suggest invoking WP:SNOW and making the change immediately --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have consensus. I have made the change --SV Resolution(Talk) 00:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article could use some additional editing to tighten up the explanation of the 3 cases, and the Sun Example, which are hard to follow. A diagram wouldn't do it any harm, either. --SV Resolution(Talk) 00:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Incorrect Assumptions

@ Adam37, Lithopsian, Tarl_N., El_C

The following edits here[1] have been reverted. The number of errors and added irrelevancies cannot be simply fixed.

Looking at this section Talk:Alpha Centauri/Archive 3#Whether stars of a high declination can be simply put in relative terms as lower/higher and then the other dimension (as we can view it, i.e. 2nd dimension) can be called 'offset' and this here [2] (written by Adam37)

Not only is this poorly written, there seems very poor comprehension of basic astronomy here (e,g. competence, where Adam37's edits of this Culmination article just appears to be made to be pointy and DE.

Specific problems include :

It is about the sidereal day, where to time between successive culminations is 23h 56m NOT 24 hours.

Saying "As to the sun this recurs at a rate which averages over time to exactly twelve hours as time-keeping is rooted in the sun (the precise basis is the tropical year); from which the moon very slightly deviates and other objects fractionally fall behind, as are subject to the perpetual precession of the equinoxes, that is tracing of the poles of the earth as against the background stars around a relatively modest circle over thousands of years."

So how is this even relevant? (It also fails WP standards.) Doesn't the sidereal day occurs because of the Earth is orbiting the Sun?

Adding (bold): "The upper culmination is above and the lower below the horizon, so the body is observed (that is assuming looking through a device that blocks out the diffuse blue sky radiation of daylight in the atmosphere) to rise and set daily; in the other cases (i.e. if in absolute value the declination is less than the observer's latitude, the colatitude)"

This isn't particularly relevant, as culmination happens regardless of atmospheric conditions (or an observer.) Worst the bright stars are visible in daylight through telescopes. e.g. Surveyors once used stars to find latitude this way.

Changing this:

"Supposing that the declination of the Sun is +20° on a given summer day, the complementary angle of 70° (from the Sun to the pole) is added to and subtracted from the observer's latitude to find the solar altitudes at upper and lower culminations, respectively."

to this:

"Supposing that the declination of the Sun is +20° on a thus specific Northern Hemisphere "high summer" day, the complementary angle, hence 70° (from the globally calculated declination of the sun to the pole) is added to any observer's latitude to find the sun's altitude at upper culmination; for lower culmination it is subtracted."

Both version make poor understanding or sense, and the 'update' is even worst. Plainly the season or location is irrelevant. If the Sun is at +20° declination, the time indicated is when it crosses the local meridian, which determines the elevation of upper or lower culmination. (Any observer in the southern hemisphere still sees the Sun at +20° declination still gets an upper and lower culmination too - the latter only missed because it is below the horizon.)

Please justify these changes. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited this article before, what exactly are you asking of me? El_C 00:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C My apologies. I misread your recent rv edits on Betelgeuse for the many changes made on Alpha Centauri and Talk:Alpha Centauri article between Lithopsian and Adam37 which relate to culmination. Simple mix up. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issues are this discussion here[3] on 'Edit to "Sidereal time". Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The number of errors and added irrelevancies cannot be simply fixed."
Could you please, Ariane, therefore openly admit you see where the grammatical and more basic English/basic logic edits I was making were coming from (not just good faith, but breaking things down so all readers do not suffer from a propensity towards unnecessary WP:JARGON; as to lithopsian you will receive warm embraces from that editor, as he is particularly keen on complex and indeed not fully expounded/explained wording in discussing major topics, i.e. wherever possible using degree-level language in astrophysics, on subject of major public interest, and where it is just not necessary and imposes an unnecessary classical-centric worldview.- Adam37 Talk 10:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A simple principle here. If you don't understand something, then don't edit it. None of the response above is even slightly relevant in explaining your grossly factually wrong edits.

Also any jargon has been properly linked. e.g. meridian (astronomy) written as 'local meridian' in the text, so other readers can go to that page if they want to know more about it. Your 'explanation' made little sense at all, and your own words actually added even more jargon. I.e. "intermediate earth" (meaning what?) Your obviation is astounding here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your last stance fails to think outside of a well-educated worldview. Many people would think that in that sentence that both culminations would be potentially visible (ie above the horizon) whereas one or both or neither can be below it. That is hardly obscure if one says there could be intermediate earth between the viewer and the object. Once again you inject doubt where there is none.- Adam37 Talk 09:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is at all relevant. Again. The following edits here[4] have been reverted. The number of errors and added irrelevancies cannot be simply fixed." They are factually wrong and/or have nothing to do with the topic.

As for "intermediate earth" (other than whoever else says this), isn't that also jargon? Yet you complain and want: "...so all readers do not suffer from a propensity towards unnecessary WP:JARGON" Rules for one, other rules for everyone else? Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not admit this start-class article is perfect in wording/logic

Firstly how can an instant in time be applicable to a whole constellation.

Secondly a number of other things I was reading here are logical errors. None of the points I have made (yes you can add an odd qualifier/adjective or other word if there is any conceivable ambiguities with reading my PLAIN ENGLISH explanations) have been as daft as such logical inconsistencies.- Adam37 Talk 10:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In our language 'instant in time' is a tautology. Every one of my edits above was making a significant improvement, and carefully made; looking at WP:CIR you will see I have carefully verified each assertion, just sometimes it could do with more qualification (exceptions noted)/a narrower meaning word choice, but it is not incompetent editing at all, every edit of mine moves the article's inconsistences, misreading possibilities and tautologies out of the park where they belong.- Adam37 Talk 10:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Context trumps everything. Edit as you wish, but don't change meaning. Using chidden language in light of the current problematic contextual issues that you alone caused seems only to purposely evade the actual problem. e.g. The changes made the article worst because they were either incomprehensible or just wrong.

Note: A constellation can culminate, meaning the mid-point or centre when it transits. e.g. Knowing this helps observers look at celestial bodies when at their best or highest above the horizon. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to break down your above paragraph into how wrong it is, for example, your English is basically incomprenhensive under your own formula:-

1. chidden = an archaic word/too strongly contentious (ironic really given how you cast my language as in some way non-scientific enough...)
2. to purposely evade = a split infinitive.
3. The article worst = the turn of the phrase is either the article worse, or the article the worst it has been, your phrase is not English.
4. As anyone thinking slowly and carefully about constellations without knowing the above 'convention' you so cleverly seem to know of, would assume, such as myself it could be when the most prominent star in the constellation is visible and not as you put. Why not tell the readers that then. It's useful information. Or do you like to keep that which ought to be hidden hidden. Are you indulging in some sort of mysticism in your preferred version of articles? As to not changing meaning you need to read the whole article including diagrams to spot inconsistencies, which widely exist in the articles you are mentioning, rather than be WP:BOLD I take it you firmly believe I don't have the competence to spot those blatant inconsistencies and so should adhere rigorously to extracts from texts which have been misquoted, misinterpreted or wrongly cut short leading to a false impression, based on all the other intrinsic information on the same or related article pages - what I would do to compromise is instead of BOLD follow CIR which is to make tiny changes justifying each with an actual unimpeachable source, I can assure you 90% of my changes are without fault. You're the one finding fault, and polling all editors to try and make your overly time-consuming case rather than going with the flow of a decent copyeditor.- Adam37 Talk 09:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. So you understand irony. ;) As for: "I can assure you 90% of my changes are without fault." Sorry, they were factually wrong, no matter what fictional self-justification that you present. The rest is specious.

As for claiming the "polling all editors" is false.

You made these Alpha Centauri edits[5] at Revision as of 01:14, 29 May 2019
Then made these two edits under Culmination here[6] Revision as of 05:14, 29 May 2019
Then made this comment on Talk:Alpha Centauri here[7] Revision as of 05:39, 29 May 2019. Adam37 saying:"there is nought wrong in my mind in calling a high northern or southern star (in those hemispheres) "above" / "below" another;" and shows the likely connection between the Alpha Centauri and Culmination edits.

It does appears reading the Culmination edits I consider that you were trying to reinforce a POV to justify the earlier reverts made by Lithopsian here[8] Revision as of 02:44, 29 May 2019.

I had pinged Lithopsian after their transfer here[9] and Tarl N. because they responded in the thread on Talk:Alpha Centauri here[10]. (El_C was added accidentally, as I explained. My mistake.) They were added as a courtesy only because they were involved with your given assertions (now found to be incorrect.) This isn't 'polling'. Worse, this looks like reenforcing a singular POV against policy.

As for saying: "You're the one finding fault, and polling all editors to try and make your overly time-consuming case rather than going with the flow of a decent copyeditor." is nonsense. You've already been explained why here[11] Again. "You are responsible for your edits, and if challenged, the onus of proof is on the individual who adds the edit." Furthermore, onus says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Burden is yours. That's policy. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "culmination"

I got pinged. I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm here. I haven't read all the discussion, but it seems that a pressing problem is the actual definition of "culmination" in the lead. I'm not going to express an opinion (maybe later, if it seems like it would be helpful), but have a suggestion how things might be resolved. If you each find, say, three of the most explicit definitions of culmination in reliable sources, then compare results and see from there. It might be good to find definitions in different types of sources, say a dictionary, an astronomical textbook, and a journal paper, in case usage differs. No cherry-picking would be ideal, just find the clearest most unambiguous explanations, but whatever. I know there are existing references in the article, but apparently they aren't clear and unambiguous enough to produce an agreed definition? Lithopsian (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lithopsian "I got pinged. I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm here. " Reason is here[12], specifically these earlier reverts made here[13] after your transfer here[14].

The issue is the additions of two edits made by Adam37 are possibly related to the Alpha Centauri edits in which you were involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solar culmination

Would anyone please weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Noon#High noon, particularly with regard to how the nonspecialist terms solar noon and high noon relate to both the time of the Sun's meridian transit and the time of the Sun's highest altitude? Ibadibam (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]