On May 19, 7:10 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> : Are you terrified of a little fact ?
> That would be more your schtick. You won't even mention, or acknowledge
> when asked, that stellar circumpolar motion is regular, and so is earth's
> orbital motion, and the combination of the two yields the observed
> solar days. Solar days are secondary. It's a fact. That you are
> either afraid of, or blind to.
If your stellar circumpolar view is coming up with 1465 rotations in
the same time the Earth makes 4 circuits of the Sun then days and
rotations will fall out of sync so you find yourself unable to
understand or explain why all the experiences within a 24 hour day is
a direct result of a rotating Earth.A flat-Earther cannot reason above
his view that the Earth looks flat so it must be flat and can't manage
to raise himself to a wider perspective and your view is even worse
for if you had checked the number of days across 4 years you would
find the Earth turns 1461 times so we are talking arithmetic here even
before getting into the technicalities of how days/years correspond to
rotations/orbital circuits.
What happens is that silence speaks volumes ,it is not just that the
flow of information from astronomy to terrestrial sciences ceases but
also the connection between the individual and his natural
surroundings,for all out great technological advancement we are
completely ignorant of natural sciences where our ancestors were not.
> : Without the proper facts the flow of information between planetary
> : dynamics and terrestrial sciences ceases
> Yes, exactly. And you willfully ignore the facts of the matter, and
> ignore the fact that planetary dynamics is a matter of forces and inertia.
> *Why* you are so willfully blind, nobody can tell, because you refuse
> to answer questions designed to diagnose it.
The Earth's equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour or a rate of 15
degrees of rotation is crucial for such things as evolutionary geology
and why people experience earthquakes in context of the wider picture
of plate tectonics.I set out the arguments for a rotational mechanism
that dovetails nicely with the planet's 26 mile spherical deviation as
having the highest probability of success but see it now mangled by
those who are careless and reckless with the hypothesis.It is
therefore not just about the Earth turning once in a day but a point
of departure for all terrestrial sciences and that is not going to
happen with something as utterly ridiculous as a concept which is
below even that of a flat-Earther.
Do you not like the fact that today ,the 19th May 2012 is one rotation
of the planet ? - the fact is not that you don't know it but that it
is a badge of empirical acceptance that you ignore it - a sort of
empirical 2+2=5.
> :: This is like popping the hood of a car to see what makes it run while
> :: you guys chant voodoo at the calendar system and imagine all sorts of
> :: things that don't work or fit.
> Astrophysicists popped the hood.
and decided the horses were inside the block, but there had to be
gas drinking horses to make it run because they couldn't imagine
anything else.
On May 18, 8:05 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 10:42 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > It is the result of the beautiful grand design of God's handiwork in
> > which it is decreed that the Earth and the other planets of the Solar
> > System should orbit the Sun in the beautiful and majestic Copernican
> > scheme.
> > The incorruptible and eternal cycles of the planets are not to be
> > reduced to the crude physical laws that govern objects on the surface
> > of the Earth, the corrupt fallen place that Man inhabits.
> Oriel has offered nothing better.
I guess I should have been clearer. Based on my reading of his posts
over a period of several years, that *is* what Oriel offers, minus the
flowery language.
On Sat, 19 May 2012 04:47:24 GMT, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>:: This is like popping the hood of a car to see what makes it run while
>:: you guys chant voodoo at the calendar system and imagine all sorts of
>:: things that don't work or fit.
>Astrophysicists popped the hood.
>You insist this was a bad idea, and would like everybody
>to just shut that hood, and keep to superficial and backwards explanations.
Good luck looking into a black hole. Heck, we can't even see the
*outside* of the universe.
And who's to say that it is even possible for us to perceive and measure
reality? There's all kinds of theories about anti-matter, dark matter,
dark energy, etc.
: oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
: If your stellar circumpolar view is coming up with 1465 rotations in
: the same time the Earth makes 4 circuits of the Sun then days and
: rotations will fall out of sync so you find yourself unable to
: understand or explain why all the experiences within a 24 hour day is
: a direct result of a rotating Earth.
That would be because the experiences in a 24 hour day is a
direct result of a rotating and orbiting earth. In short
it's not a bug, it's a feature. Rather obviously so.
: The Earth's equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour or a rate of 15
: degrees of rotation is crucial for such things as evolutionary geology
: and why people experience earthquakes in context of the wider picture
: of plate tectonics.
Now ou're just trying to prop up one delusion with another.
::: The incorruptible and eternal cycles of the planets are not to be
::: reduced to the crude physical laws that govern objects on the
::: surface of the Earth, the corrupt fallen place that Man inhabits.
:: "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com>
:: Oriel has offered nothing better.
: Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca>
: I guess I should have been clearer. Based on my reading of his posts
: over a period of several years, that *is* what Oriel offers, minus the
: flowery language.
I expect what was meant was that the thing oriel36 offers nothing better
than is "the crude physical laws", not "incorruptable and eternal cycles".
That is, the IaEC is in fact a worse idea than tCPL. That is, after all,
largely *why* astronomers quite reasonably abandoned IaEC for tCPL.
> he had the *sense* enough, not to put the words "super-earth" anywhere in the article...cause
> deep down in his heart he knows that's ...Mendacity.
> "..they are still missing a *crucial* piece of information: Kepler-22b's mass."
> cru·cial
> adjective /?kro?oSH?l/
> Decisive or critical, esp. in the success or failure of something
> Of great importance
> super-earth
> An extrasolar planet with a mass..
Futhermore...
Kepler-22b is the *first* to be called a Super-Earth. How can that be when they didn't even have
a crucial piece of information: Kepler-22b's mass?
Of course, they don't feel they have to prove anything 'they just made-up'.
Mendacity.
The Starmaker
Most of time is wasted in the 'scientific community' having to prove 'stuff they just made-up'.
They 'make-up the stuff', then they got to come up with a defintion for it, then they got to
put it up on Wiki, then they got to put it in all the textbooks, newspapers, magzines, media, ..then t
hey got to get government funding for the stuff they just made-up.., then...they have to go on Usenet and convince stupid people like me that Super-Earth exist. What a waste of time. It's just ...Mendacity.
God will tell you Himself "Don't listen to these fuckin people, there's only one Earth, I Know, I FUCKIN MADE THE FUCKING THING!!!!"
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:38:15 +0000, Remus Shepherd wrote:
> Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <jm7egq$h3...@reader1.panix.com>, re...@panix.com says...
>> > I think there's some debate about whether Eris should be a planet
>> > or not,
>> > but with an orbit as eccentric and inclined as Eris' I wouldn't
>> > classify it as one. It's pretty obviously a captured body, not
>> > something that originated in the stellar disk.
>> So a captured body massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity,
>> that settled into a stable orbit and cleared its neighbouring region of
>> planetesimals, would not be a planet?
> I personally believe there should be some criteria about the
> eccentricity
> of the orbit, so that only bodies with circular orbits are called
> planets. That would still not allow Pluto or Eris into the club, but it
> might induct Ceres.
> The official IAU definition doesn't care about eccentric orbit,
> except that
> it becomes difficult to 'clear the neighborhood' if the planet swings in
> and out too far. Eris and Pluto are in each other's 'neighborhood' and
> thus fail the IAU definition. And of course Ceres is right out.
> To me, the reason to define something as a planet is to pin down its
> cosmology. Planets aggregated out of the dust in the stellar disk.
> Everything else was probably captured later. That's the only useful
> definition. But the IAU isn't using the definition for that purpose.
> ... ...
> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
> New Webcomic: Genocide Man http://www.genocideman.com/ > Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
If you insist on circular orbits, then there are NO planets in our solar system. All of the planets, including Earth, have elliptical orbits.
-- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
On 8 Jun 2012 12:14:35 GMT, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com>
wrote:
>If you insist on circular orbits, then there are NO planets in our solar >system. All of the planets, including Earth, have elliptical orbits.
This sent me off to find out how elliptic our planets orbits actually
are since I realised I had no visceral feel for it, and only really
recalled Pluto's wandering inside Neptune's radius.
Turns out that Venus and Neptune are roundest with eccentricities of
.007 and .009 respectively, and the earth comes in third at 0.017. At
the other end, Mercury is only 20% less eccentric than Pluto! Much
smaller radius orbit so it doesn't show so much - though useful for
testing relativity back in the day, of course.
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>the other end, Mercury is only 20% less eccentric than Pluto! Much
>smaller radius orbit so it doesn't show so much - though useful for
>testing relativity back in the day, of course.
That eccentricity is why the tidal lock didn't result in a permanent
day.
-- I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:01:07 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
> In article
> <76a1c582-e293-449a-8935-8b6134756...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
>>>> an intellectual pygmy trying to understand the sacred language of our
>>>> ancestors.
>>> "Sacred language". Most amusing.
>> Sing that 'sidereal time' tune again,you can almost hear the laugh of
>> the great astronomers as as I watch you handle their system with all
>> the grace of a chimpanzee with a violin.
> A general question pertaining to mental illness:
> Is there a strong correlation between (a) being a committed, truly
> believing math / physics / engineering / reality crank (like our Oriel)
> and (b) being a big air-of-superiority jerk (like our Oriel), or is it
> just that we only _hear from_ the jerky cranks ad infinitum, while the
> ones who are equally deluded but not suffering from a social personality
> disorder are politely quiet about it?
Probably the latter case, I would think. You also have the paranoid cranks who don't publicize their views because the [insert conspiracy theory here] will come after them.
-- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:04:06 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
> In article
> <a7c61ee8-bbab-4bd1-ad3e-e540c7c11...@m7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said, in its entirety:
>> So,the astronomical equivalent of 2+2=4 is that the Earth turns 360
>> degrees in a 24 hour period and any sentiment other than dismay is
>> improper to watch a dystopian society argue for 2+2=5.A society so
>> detached from cause and effect at this level is in great difficulties
>> and although there are signs that some stability is returning,a decade
>> ago NASA wouldn't have dared put out a video with the Lat/Long system
>> and the AM/PM cycles,it has to be done with honesty and integrity.
> Gosh Oriel, why won't you answer Wayne's five simple questions?
> -- wds
Because, if he did, he wouldn't have an excuse to keep posting the same drivel over and over again.
-- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:04:06 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
> > In article
> > <a7c61ee8-bbab-4bd1-ad3e-e540c7c11...@m7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> > oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said, in its entirety:
> >> So,the astronomical equivalent of 2+2=4 is that the Earth turns 360
> >> degrees in a 24 hour period and any sentiment other than dismay is
> >> improper to watch a dystopian society argue for 2+2=5.A society so
> >> detached from cause and effect at this level is in great difficulties
> >> and although there are signs that some stability is returning,a decade
> >> ago NASA wouldn't have dared put out a video with the Lat/Long system
> >> and the AM/PM cycles,it has to be done with honesty and integrity.
> > Gosh Oriel, why won't you answer Wayne's five simple questions?
> > -- wds
> Because, if he did, he wouldn't have an excuse to keep posting the same
> drivel over and over again.
> --JohnF.Eldredge-- j...@jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
> is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
The easiest of all questions to answer in science is - how many times
does the Earth turn daily for the same amount of times it completes 4
circuits of the Sun ?,the answer ,of course,is to count the squares on
any calendar from Mar 1st 2012 until February 29th 2016 which gives an
answer of 1461 times (3 years of 365 rotations and 1 year of 366
rotations).So,with all the fuss over relativity, 60 nanoseconds and
CERN,it is quite something to encounter the dismal fact that followers
of relativity,as an extension of Newton's agenda,are out by a full
rotation each year as the late 17th century ideology invokes 1465
rotations in 4 years.
The issue over the planet definition is not an isolated case,it comes
from a community with a muddled view of things while the community
itself is a loose cohesion bound together using wages and reputation
rather than any intellectual depth.All in all,an immensely difficult
problem that is far harder to deal with than any technical issue
involved.
oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Jun 9, 9:23 pm, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:04:06 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
>> > Gosh Oriel, why won't you answer Wayne's five simple questions?
>> Because, if he did, he wouldn't have an excuse to keep posting the same
>> drivel over and over again.
>The easiest of all questions to answer in science is - how many times
<snip same old drivel>
And once again, you *still* didn't answer Wayne's five questions!
On Jun 11, 3:09 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Jun 9, 9:23 pm, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:04:06 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
> >> > Gosh Oriel, why won't you answer Wayne's five simple questions?
> >> Because, if he did, he wouldn't have an excuse to keep posting the same
> >> drivel over and over again.
> >The easiest of all questions to answer in science is - how many times
> <snip same old drivel>
> And once again, you *still* didn't answer Wayne's five questions!
People who can't accept that one 24 hour day and one 360 degree
rotation of the Earth keep in step don't really have questions nor
answers yet Newton's vicious strain of empiricism is based on an
imbalance which swirls around all that lingo of absolute/relative
time,space and motion.It is such a peculiar thing that even when the
entire line of reasoning is explained with all the references needed
to mesh the AM/PM system with the Lat/Long system,there is not the
slightest hint of recognition - not from one person in well over a
decade.
The first nation to adopt the proper perspectives and teach them to
their students will have a incredible advantage over nations that do
not.
<kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 11, 3:09 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >On Jun 9, 9:23 pm, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:04:06 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
>> >> > Gosh Oriel, why won't you answer Wayne's five simple questions?
>> >> Because, if he did, he wouldn't have an excuse to keep posting the same
>> >> drivel over and over again.
>> >The easiest of all questions to answer in science is - how many times
>> <snip same old drivel>
>> And once again, you *still* didn't answer Wayne's five questions!
>People who can't accept that one 24 hour day and one 360 degree
>rotation of the Earth keep in step don't really have questions nor
>answers yet Newton's vicious strain of empiricism is based on an
>imbalance which swirls around all that lingo of absolute/relative
>time,space and motion.It is such a peculiar thing that even when the
>entire line of reasoning is explained with all the references needed
>to mesh the AM/PM system with the Lat/Long system,there is not the
>slightest hint of recognition - not from one person in well over a
>decade.
>The first nation to adopt the proper perspectives and teach them to
>their students will have a incredible advantage over nations that do
>not.
Oh, go away, moron. Nobody cares.
-- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
On Jun 11, 8:45 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The first nation to adopt the proper perspectives and teach them to
> their students will have a incredible advantage over nations that do
> not.
You should know perfectly well how well Newton's empiricism and
Einstein's relativity work for designing cannons and atomic bombs.
Replacing them with a framework of thought about astronomy that
involves merely passively standing in awe at the wonderful spectacle
does _not_ promise an advantage over other nations of the kind that
matters to politicians.
|> >On Jun 9, 9:23 pm, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
|> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:04:06 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
|>
|> >> > Gosh Oriel, why won't you answer Wayne's five simple questions?
|>
|> >> Because, if he did, he wouldn't have an excuse to keep posting the same
|> >> drivel over and over again.
|>
|> >The easiest of all questions to answer in science is - how many times
|>
|> <snip same old drivel>
|>
|> And once again, you *still* didn't answer Wayne's five questions!
|
| People who can't accept that one 24 hour day and one 360 degree
| rotation of the Earth keep in step don't really have questions nor
| answers yet Newton's vicious strain of empiricism is based on an
| imbalance which swirls around all that lingo of absolute/relative
| time,space and motion.It is such a peculiar thing that even when the
| entire line of reasoning is explained with all the references needed
| to mesh the AM/PM system with the Lat/Long system,there is not the
| slightest hint of recognition - not from one person in well over a
| decade.
So, in over 10 year of explaining you haven't found a single person that
agrees with your point of view. Have you ever considered that it may
just be you that has the wrong point of view?
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:45:54 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> | On Jun 11, 3:09 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)| wrote:
> |> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> writes:
> |> >On Jun 9, 9:23 pm, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> |> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:04:06 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
> |>
> |> >> > Gosh Oriel, why won't you answer Wayne's five simple questions?
> |>
> |> >> Because, if he did, he wouldn't have an excuse to keep posting the same
> |> >> drivel over and over again.
> |>
> |> >The easiest of all questions to answer in science is - how many times
> |>
> |> <snip same old drivel>
> |>
> |> And once again, you *still* didn't answer Wayne's five questions!
> |
> | People who can't accept that one 24 hour day and one 360 degree
> | rotation of the Earth keep in step don't really have questions nor
> | answers yet Newton's vicious strain of empiricism is based on an
> | imbalance which swirls around all that lingo of absolute/relative
> | time,space and motion.It is such a peculiar thing that even when the
> | entire line of reasoning is explained with all the references needed
> | to mesh the AM/PM system with the Lat/Long system,there is not the
> | slightest hint of recognition - not from one person in well over a
> | decade.
> So, in over 10 year of explaining you haven't found a single person that
> agrees with your point of view.
It isn't a point of view - it is an experience.
Within a 24 hour day there are all the experiences of one rotation of
the Earth and never do they fall out of step for just as one rotation
equates to one day then so does the Earth turn a thousand times in a
thousand days.
> Have you ever considered that it may
> just be you that has the wrong point of view?
I have considered many things and especially why an entire generation
of people with incredibly advanced technology could lose touch with a
primary experience that links cause and effect - the fact that you
will wake up to a new day and cannot assign a proper cause as the
Earth turns in its daily cycle and does so 1461 times it takes to
complete 4 circuits of the Sun.
So,differing points of view are fine when there is a certain standard
of perceptual and factual intelligence but no such standard exists and
cannot exist as long as the educational and research community rejects
something as obvious and simple as the Earth turns 15 degrees per hour
and its entire 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours.Again,having
trillions of dollars worth of technology comes to nothing if it is not
used properly at scales of time and space that go beyond immediate
experience such as the 24 hour day and its cause and on to the greater
cycles.
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Jun 12, 1:21 am, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
| wrote:
|> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:45:54 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
|>
|> | On Jun 11, 3:09 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)| wrote:
|> |> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> writes:
|>
|> |> >On Jun 9, 9:23 pm, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
|> |> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:04:06 -0400, William December Starr wrote:
|> |>
|> |> >> > Gosh Oriel, why won't you answer Wayne's five simple questions?
|> |>
|> |> >> Because, if he did, he wouldn't have an excuse to keep posting the same
|> |> >> drivel over and over again.
|> |>
|> |> >The easiest of all questions to answer in science is - how many times
|> |>
|> |> <snip same old drivel>
|> |>
|> |> And once again, you *still* didn't answer Wayne's five questions!
|> |
|> | People who can't accept that one 24 hour day and one 360 degree
|> | rotation of the Earth keep in step don't really have questions nor
|> | answers yet Newton's vicious strain of empiricism is based on an
|> | imbalance which swirls around all that lingo of absolute/relative
|> | time,space and motion.It is such a peculiar thing that even when the
|> | entire line of reasoning is explained with all the references needed
|> | to mesh the AM/PM system with the Lat/Long system,there is not the
|> | slightest hint of recognition - not from one person in well over a
|> | decade.
|>
|> So, in over 10 year of explaining you haven't found a single person that
|> agrees with your point of view.
|
| It isn't a point of view - it is an experience.
|
| Within a 24 hour day there are all the experiences of one rotation of
| the Earth and never do they fall out of step for just as one rotation
| equates to one day then so does the Earth turn a thousand times in a
| thousand days.
If you add "relative to the sun" in there, I agree with you. Noon to
Noon is 24 hours, but it's more than 360 degrees of rotation, due to
Earth moving slightly in it's orbit.
|> Have you ever considered that it may
|> just be you that has the wrong point of view?
|>
|
| I have considered many things and especially why an entire generation
| of people with incredibly advanced technology could lose touch with a
| primary experience that links cause and effect - the fact that you
| will wake up to a new day and cannot assign a proper cause as the
| Earth turns in its daily cycle and does so 1461 times it takes to
| complete 4 circuits of the Sun.
|
| So,differing points of view are fine when there is a certain standard
| of perceptual and factual intelligence but no such standard exists and
| cannot exist as long as the educational and research community rejects
| something as obvious and simple as the Earth turns 15 degrees per hour
| and its entire 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours.Again,having
| trillions of dollars worth of technology comes to nothing if it is not
| used properly at scales of time and space that go beyond immediate
| experience such as the 24 hour day and its cause and on to the greater
| cycles.
I have put together a simple animated simulation of an exaggerated
situation to illustrate my view of the situation.
Feel free to point out, in detail, where you think it is wrong. Or maybe
you could produce something similar to illustrate how things work in
your world?
On Jun 18, 10:38 am, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),oriel36<kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> | Within a 24 hour day there are all the experiences of one rotation of
> | the Earth and never do they fall out of step for just as one rotation
> | equates to one day then so does the Earth turn a thousand times in a
> | thousand days.
> If you add "relative to the sun" in there, I agree with you. Noon to
> Noon is 24 hours, but it's more than 360 degrees of rotation, due to
> Earth moving slightly in it's orbit.
You can't help yourselves.the are 7 days in proportion to one week,the
geometric proportion of 3.1415 diameters to one circumference,there
are a proportion of 1461 days to 4 years and 1461 rotations to 4
circuits of the Sun so if you want to bounce rotation as an
independent motion off something,do it against the orbital
circumference where you will discover why the extra 24 hour day and
rotation is needed to close out 4 orbital circuits of the planet as
opposed to a continuous proportion of 365 rotations.
We should be discussing the uneven rotational gradient between equator
and polar latitudes which is responsible for the planet's 26 mile
spherical deviation,how the surface crust evolves and moves in
response to this differential rotation and how to eek out a planet's
magnetic field from similar causes by usingg Venus as a comparison
instead of trying to convince people the Earth turns once in 24 hours.
The Earth has a maximum equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour and
turning its full 360 degree circumference in 24 hours,it people get a
perverse kick from imagining 1465 rotations in 4 orbital circuits of
an alternative equatorial speed then there is nothing I could do about
it even if there is no much expenditure on time,space on motion based
on the errant view.
In short,I have moved on even if nobody else has or wants to.
> |> Have you ever considered that it may
> |> just be you that has the wrong point of view?
> |>
> |
> | I have consideredmanythings and especially why an entire generation
> | of people with incredibly advanced technology could lose touch with a
> | primary experience that links cause and effect - the fact that you
> | will wake up to a new day and cannot assign a proper cause as the
> | Earth turns in its daily cycle and does so 1461 times it takes to
> | complete 4 circuits of the Sun.
> |
> | So,differing points of view are fine when there is a certain standard
> | of perceptual and factual intelligence but no such standard exists and
> | cannot exist as long as the educational and research community rejects
> | something as obvious and simple as the Earth turns 15 degrees per hour
> | and its entire 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours.Again,having
> | trillions of dollars worth of technology comes to nothing if it is not
> | used properly at scales of time and space that go beyond immediate
> | experience such as the 24 hour day and its cause and on to the greater
> | cycles.
> I have put together a simple animated simulation of an exaggerated
> situation to illustrate my view of the situation.
> Feel free to point out, in detail, where you think it is wrong. Or maybe
> you could produce something similar to illustrate how things work in
> your world?
: oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
: You can't help yourselves.the are 7 days in proportion to one week
Becayse a bunch of early peaceful agrarian reformers liked the number "7".
: geometric proportion of 3.1415 diameters to one circumference
approximately
: there are a proportion of 1461 days to 4 years and 1461 rotations to 4
: circuits of the Sun
approximately
: so if you want to bounce rotation as an independent motion off
: something,do it against the orbital circumference where you will
: discover why the extra 24 hour day and rotation is needed to close out
: 4 orbital circuits of the planet as opposed to a continuous proportion
: of 365 rotations.
Well, sure, if you wanted to look at it completely bass-ackwards.
And one could push a pebble up a mountain with your nose.
Neither are particularly sensible ways to proceed to achieve the
goal of understanding rotation and orbit, nor pebble-elevation.
Sure, you can always tie yourself in knotts supposing the sun's period
is somehow fundamental, despite all the abundant evidence that it's a
particularly dim-witted supposition. You can always suppose that celestial
bodies follow entirely different laws than ordinary everyday bodies, despite
the rather obvious evidence that they do. You can always find a way to do
*anything* completely arse-uppards.
> On Jun 18, 10:38 am, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT),oriel36<kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > | Within a 24 hour day there are all the experiences of one rotation of
> > | the Earth and never do they fall out of step for just as one rotation
> > | equates to one day then so does the Earth turn a thousand times in a
> > | thousand days.
> > If you add "relative to the sun" in there, I agree with you. Noon to
> > Noon is 24 hours, but it's more than 360 degrees of rotation, due to
> > Earth moving slightly in it's orbit.
> You can't help yourselves.the are 7 days in proportion to one week,the
> geometric proportion of 3.1415 diameters to one circumference,there
> are a proportion of 1461 days to 4 years and 1461 rotations to 4
> circuits of the Sun so if you want to bounce rotation as an
> independent motion off something,do it against the orbital
> circumference where you will discover why the extra 24 hour day and
> rotation is needed to close out 4 orbital circuits of the planet as
> opposed to a continuous proportion of 365 rotations.
Nothing to do with the fact that noon to noon does not equal 360
degrees rotation.
Hours, weeks etc. are sheer numerology.
You still haven't explained how to tell the Earth has completed one
orbit of Sol without using a celestial body external to Sol system
(all of which move, disqualifying them as stable references).
> We should be discussing the uneven rotational gradient between equator
> and polar latitudes which is responsible for the planet's 26 mile
> spherical deviation,how the surface crust evolves and moves in
> response to this differential rotation and how to eek out a planet's
> magnetic field from similar causes by usingg Venus as a comparison
> instead of trying to convince people the Earth turns once in 24 hours.
Think in cylindrical coordinates. Makes everything much more
obvious.
24 hours is still sheer numerology.
> The Earth has a maximum equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour and
> turning its full 360 degree circumference in 24 hours
That is not noon-to-noon.
> In short,I have moved on even if nobody else has or wants to.
