posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:59 PM
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by ngchunter
Many people find it possible to hold with their own discipline while respecting others' perceptions.
The source below acknowledges and respects Inuit perceptions - and explains many as refraction, caused by light bending differently through hot and
I'm well aware of the explanation, I agree with it and mentioned it myself already, but I'm a scientist by trade, I've ripped into the methodologies
of other scientists over less. Even when I believe their results and conclusions are probably right, I'll still regard even a peer reviewed and
published study with skepticism if the methodology is sloppy. It's nothing personal.
…In 52 years, the sun has shifted southward by 19 KM, which is a 44 degree movement relative to the position of the observer. This is an
example of the massive visual shift that elders across the north have observed, leading them to each conclude that the earth has tilted.
That's the statement that raises a huge red flag to me. No information is given as to how the observer proved that the observation occurred from the
exact same spot 52 years apart. A 44 degree change is massive (of course I already know that's not happening physically, they think it is), and I
regard landmark-based measurements with a heavy dose of skepticism, particularly when provided without additional detailed proof either of the
technique used or the observation itself.
...It might be beneficial to discuss whether or not 'refraction' explains the change in daylight hours (from 1 to 2 hours for hunting), and the
observation that the sun is higher overhead (refraction is more relevant at the horizon).
Of course, that would require respect for the Inuit perceptions.
I respect that the Inuit observed something that caused them to think the earth tilted in such a way that the sun was moved 44 degrees over 52 years,
but I question the reason why that happened, including the methodology used. I grow weary of saying it, but I do not exclude the possibility that
they did perform their observations properly and it is abnormal levels of atmospheric refraction that they saw. Additional reports from Greenland and
elsewhere anecdotally suggest that Novaya Zemlya may
be occurring more frequently than in the past. I even think additional study in the
arctic is warranted, I simply have concerns about the accuracy of their observations. I'm sorry you find that offensive or lacking respect.
Oh, and to answer your question, yes, abnormally high levels of atmospheric refraction would increase the apparent length of the day; refracting the
sun's position higher than it should be can affect both the sunrise and sunset times, hastening sunrise and delaying sunset.
edit on 12-9-2011
by ngchunter because: (no reason given)