Re: Modify axial precession to an annual orbital feature

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:58:58 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
| On May 18, 8:20 pm, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
|> On Sat, 18 May 2013 04:06:11 -0700, oriel36 wrote:
|> > On May 18, 11:30 am, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
|> > wrote:
|>
|> >> So now motions *do* scale up. Glad to see you have finally realised
|> >> this is true.
|>
|> > Motions have always scaled up but the vicious strain of empiricism and
|> > the empirical drones who promote it insert a belief that the behavior of
|> > an apple or terrestrial ballistics at a human level scale up to
|> > planetary and lunar dynamics and that is  an exceptionally dumb view in
|> > the 21st century however like most things you are simply unable to
|> > perceive the difference between motive analogies and the analogies which
|> > draw on the behavior of common objects in motion.
|>
|> Interesting.  So you are both admitting that motions scale up, and
|> denying that motions scale up, within the same paragraph.
|>
|> --
|> 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
|
| Normal people can scale up to the behavior of planets and moon through
| analogies such as walking around objects or moving objects around a
| table to capture the appearance of the motions in the celestial arena
| hence the traffic roundabout explanation as cars fall behind in the
| side view as a car overtakes the slower moving car in an outer lane
| and transfer it to what was known as 'retrograde motion' -
|
| http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
|
| How you get from an apple falling from a tree to explaining planetary
| and lunar dynamics might impress a 13 year old student but such is the
| way kids get scammed through people with no integrity who try to pass
| wishful thinking as 'explanations'.When faced with actual imaging and
| analogies you are lost and be seen to be lost.
|
| Do you really think by voodoo chanting you can wreck havoc with
| genuine insights such as the genuine resolution for retrogrades by the
| great astronomers or by a mathematician like Newton chancing his arm
| -
|
| "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
| stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
| always seen direct,..." Newton
|
| A spinning moon is like a flat Earth,you can't show any imaging of a
| spinning moon no more than you could a flat EArth leaving the huge
| problem of getting rid of empirical indoctrination.


Lets hope that NASA gets their MOST telescope at Mars up and running
soon, so they can point it back at the Earth/Moon system and get origel
the video he so desperately wants.


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul Colquhoun" <newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote in message news:slrnkpg8fp.a...@andor.dropbear.id.au...

True, but that wasn't the question. The question was "what would a man
on a geosynchronous satellite see when he looks down at the earth?"

======================================================

His feet.

Normally a man in such a position could look up at the Earth or ahead

at the Earth. Next time you look toward the Sun imagine a point of

light in the other side of it, as far away from the Sun as you are now.

That’s where you were six months ago. Up and down have no meaning

to those in weightless conditions. 

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

[Quadibloc]

On May 18, 1:44 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The astronaut can do so because the moon doesn't spin hence we have
> such terms as the near side and far side of the moon while all
> spinning objects don't have these terms and it is just plain dumb to
> imagine otherwise.

It is true that from a child's naive point of view, the Moon does not
spin. Scientific progress, however, sometimes involves having to go
beyond surface appearances, and to proceed to a more refined and
subtle understanding of matters.

Because libration makes the view that the Moon does not spin untenable
as a basis for dealing with the Moon's motions in a precise manner,
your arguments are laughable to those who have the requisite
understanding. Only among the naive and ignorant will they have any
power to persuade.

John Savard

[John Gogo]

On May 18, 2:44 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 8:17 pm, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:36:53 -0700, oriel36 wrote:
> > > It doesn't matter whether it is a Sun or a marble as motions do scale up
> > > from a human level to a celestial level,a spinning object will be seen
> > > to spin 360 degrees from any point of view  so that observations from
> > > the moon or 31`million miles away,the Earth will be seen to spin daily
> > > as a separate motion to its orbital motion and the moon will be seen to
> > > orbit the Earth without turning in any shape or form -
>
> > From the viewpoint of a satellite in geostationary orbit, the Earth does
> > not appear to rotate at all, as the satellite takes the same length of
> > time to complete one orbit as the Earth takes to complete one rotation.
>
> It is not the lack of intelligence that is disturbing when
> encountering a cult mind,it is because there is a complete lack of
> pride and integrity that can make it such a miserable encounter.People
> who fight for freedom whether it be physical or ideological,do so
> because they refuse to accept a lot cast on them by inferior dominance
> whether it take the name of race,gender or any other artifice which
> diminishes the value of the human condition.
>
> A man can look out at a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit from the
> Sea of Tranquility region of the moon and watch the sat disappear
> behind the Earth while constantly keeping the Earth in view,like so -
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Geostationaryjava3...

>
> The astronaut can do so because the moon doesn't spin hence we have
> such terms as the near side and far side of the moon while all
> spinning objects don't have these terms and it is just plain dumb to
> imagine otherwise.
>

> A man standing on this planet cannot constantly view the Sea of
> Tranquility because the Earth spins but a satellite fixed to a spot on
> the Sea of Tranquility will never disappear behind the moon as your
> location turns to bring the moon into view.

I believe that there is no conspiracy- like there was no conspiracy to
invent aeroplanes to exist 300 years ago. We are only advanced as far
as we are. If you believe in this inequality of interpretation or
belief- than instead of complaining of conspiracy- you should lead us
with your knowledge- towards a better understanding. I read almost
everything you write Oriel. Keep up the good work.

[oriel36]

On May 19, 1:51 am, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
wrote:

> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:44:31 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> | On May 18, 8:17 pm, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> |> On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:36:53 -0700, oriel36 wrote:
> |> > It doesn't matter whether it is a Sun or a marble as motions do scale up
> |> > from a human level to a celestial level,a spinning object will be seen
> |> > to spin 360 degrees from any point of view  so that observations from
> |> > the moon or 31`million miles away,the Earth will be seen to spin daily
> |> > as a separate motion to its orbital motion and the moon will be seen to
> |> > orbit the Earth without turning in any shape or form -
> |>
> |> From the viewpoint of a satellite in geostationary orbit, the Earth does
> |> not appear to rotate at all, as the satellite takes the same length of
> |> time to complete one orbit as the Earth takes to complete one rotation.
> |
> | It is not the lack of intelligence that is disturbing when
> | encountering a cult mind,it is because there is a complete lack of
> | pride and integrity that can make it such a miserable encounter.People
> | who fight for freedom whether it be physical or ideological,do so
> | because they refuse to accept a lot cast on them by inferior dominance
> | whether it take the name of race,gender or any other artifice which
> | diminishes the value of the human condition.
> |
> | A man can look out at a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit from the
> | Sea of Tranquility region of the moon and watch the sat disappear
>

> True, but that wasn't the question. The question was "what would a man
> on a geosynchronous satellite see when he looks down at the earth?"
>

It was a like for like observation,there is no question attached
because the answer is so obvious that it demonstrates a lack of pride
in oneself should you or anyone else fail to comprehend that a
satellite fixed to a spinning Earth will temporarily disappear behind
the spinning Earth when seen from a non spinning moon while the Earth
remains always in view while a person on the spinning Earth cannot
always see the moon because of our planet's rotation but when it
does,a satellite fixed to the Sea of Tranquility location will never
disappear in that the moon doesn't spin.

It is not possible to convince a person that black is actually black
and not white no more than I could convince you that a non spinning
moon doesn't spin and unlike Mr Starmaker who believes that it is due
to lack of intelligence or an empty head as he calls it,I know it to
be a product of an dehumanizing indoctrination.Who knows why you need
to defend Newton as the only person ever to suggest the moon rotates ?
but I assure you that I am in good company in the matter of non
rotation.

With the spinning moon doctrine out there along with a lot of other
repulsive nonsense,people can forget the advance of humanity in space
adventure and all those forward looking endeavors to explore their
surroundings and that is the saddest part of it all.

[John Gogo]

On May 18, 3:10 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> : An observer on the Earth sees a satellite fixed to the Sea of
> : Tranquility location and never sees it disappear behind the moon
> : because
>
> the moon's spin is approximately synchronous to its orbit.
>
> Anything fixed to the moon's surface doesn't move (much) when
> seen from earth, for the same reason its surface doesn't.  So origel has
> just re-iterated that the moon's surface doesn't move wrt the earth.
> Well duh.  Nobody denied that.  It's true because the spin and orbit
> synchronize.  If it were spinning and not orbiting, the surface would
> be moving as seen from earth.  If it were orbiting and not spinning,
> same deal.  If it's spinning and orbiting at the same rate, you get
> what we see wrt the moon.
>
> Easy peasy lemon squeezy.  And nothing to do with Newton.
> Simple observation of motions and spins all refered to the
> same reference frame for convenience and easy understanding
> and above all, apples to apples comparisons.
>
> Origel started out wanting somwhere that doesn't see the earth's entire
> 360 degree surface.  A geostationary satellite, duh.  Now he wants
> someplace *else* that doesn't see that satellite ever go behind the earth.
> Any place on the earth from which the satellite is visible at all works,
> but in addition, another geostationary satellite, double-duh.  GOES east
> never goes behind earth wrt GOES west.
>
> First he asks for a place from which the earth's surface is one-faced.
> He is given it.  Now he changes the subject and asks for such a
> place, which doesn't go behind the earth wrt a *third* place.  He is
> given it.  Now he claims that the fact a selenesynchronous satellite
> doesn't go behind the moon wrt the earth means the moon doesn't spin,
> but but the examples he's been given show the same is true of earth,
> which he claims *does* spin.  Picking any two non-colinear-with-earth
> geosynchronous satellites, each satellite always sees earth one-faced,
> and each satellite sees the other one-faced, and earth and each satellite
> are always motionless in each other's sky.  Just exactly like the
> example origel claims proves the moon doesn't rotate.
>
> So oriel has run 'round and 'round the mulberry bush, but he's right back
> where he started: unable to tell approximately synchronous spin from
> lack of spin, all because of his dogma that requires him to use two
> different reference frames, depending on whether the topic is about
> an object or its spin.
>
> And which means origel is still left without any explanation of libration.
>
>     You don't need pants for the Victory Dance
>     'cause Baboon's better than Weasel
>     I.R. Baboon big star of cartoon, but "I.M. Weasel!"
>     I.R. Baboon reigns king in his mind
>     He's just as good as the weasely kind
>     But 'round every corner he's likely to find
>     "I! M! WEASEL!"
>                          --- lyrics wrt I.R.Baboon and I.M.Weasel
>                               (I.M.Weasel voiced by Michael Dorn
>                                 so there's my obsf, nyeah)
>
>     It's a long lost cause I can never win
>     For the civilized world accepts as unforgivable sin
>     Any talking out loud with any librarian
>     Such as Marian... Madam Librarian
>                          --- Marian the Librarian

Libration is nothing more than change which occurs on Earth at one
location of the observance of the moon in a year round fashion. One
location measures the motions of the moon and calculates libration.
Or is libration a compilation of differing reference points on Earth
(because we cannot always observe the moon at one location stationed
on Earth)- that when stitched together composite a visual video called
libration?

[Paul Colquhoun]

Look, if you can't answer, just say so. Changing the subject and
bringing in an observer on the moon just won't cut it.

If you can't answer, a simple "I don't know" will suffice. There is no
shame in admitting you don't know, but ducking and weaving to avoid
answering just make you look like you have something to hide.

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-19, oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

>> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> | It is not the lack of intelligence that is disturbing when
>> | encountering a cult mind,it is because there is a complete lack of
>> | pride and integrity that can make it such a miserable encounter.People
>> | who fight for freedom whether it be physical or ideological,do so
>> | because they refuse to accept a lot cast on them by inferior dominance
>> | whether it take the name of race,gender or any other artifice which
>> | diminishes the value of the human condition.
>> |
>> | A man can look out at a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit from the
>> | Sea of Tranquility region of the moon and watch the sat disappear
>>
>> True, but that wasn't the question. The question was "what would a man
>> on a geosynchronous satellite see when he looks down at the earth?"
>
> It was a like for like observation,there is no question attached
> because the answer is so obvious that it demonstrates a lack of pride
> in oneself

Translation: "I'm not going to answer the question, quite possibly because I've
never thought about what answers I should assign to that case and then defend
to the mental death, and you can't make me, nyah nyah neener! I'll go over HERE
and talk about THIS instead very loudly until they all give up and go away and
I get the last word and win the extremely scientific argument and become King
of Science, displacing Archimedes Plutonium!"

[stuff about things he wasn't asked about deleted]

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>> goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:

>>> oriel36  <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >a spinning object will be
>>> >seen to spin 360 degrees from any point of view
>>>

>>> Untrue.  What about the point of view that's in orbit around the
>>> object, keeping pace with its spin?
>>
>> I never thought anyone would be that silly to resort to that argument
>> insofar as a satellite in geosynchronous motion will be seen to
>> disappear from view and reappear as it keeps a fix on the same location
>> as it rotates like so -
>
> I see you couldn't figure out to explain how a satellite in
> geosynchronous orbit disappears and reappears, while remaining in the
> same location relative to Earth. Where do you think it disappears to,
> and how do you explain the fact that it contains to function 24/7, rather
> than stopping functioning when it "disappears"?

Further research indicates that Gerald IMMEDIATELY switched, before even
beginning to type out his answer, from the point of view he was requested to
imagine - "in orbit around the object, in this case Earth, keeping pace with
its spin", the viewpoint from the geosynchronous satellite, to the point of
view of "standing on the Moon on the side facing Earth, looking up or over at
Earth and the satellite from far away". So it's no wonder you're confused,
since he ran and hid before starting to reply and didn't tell you.

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-18, oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>> oriel36  <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >You got your answer as to why there are no alternative resolutions to
>> >retrograde motion apart from the view seen from a moving Earth so what
>> >more could you ask for.
>>
>> No, we never got that answer.  You claimed that putting an observer
>> on the sun was "illegal", but you never explained WHY that's illegal.
>
> I went to considerable trouble explaining this before using actual
> imaging and some new material

Nope. You went to considerable trouble to NOT explain it at all, and to not
answer the question, and to go grab some semi-related material off the
Internet without reading or viewing it thoroughly in an attempt to distract
from the fact that you hadn't actually answered the question. WHY is putting
an observer on the Sun, to look out at the orbits of the planets (ignoring the
moons for now), illegal? Not 'hey look at this video I found of the Moon going
around the Earth with a satellite near it', not 'Newton was a lying seducing
idiot and all scientists since then are hyp-mo-tized', just an answer to the
question that was actually asked.

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-18, John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:25:57 -0500, David DeLaney wrote:
>> A geosynchronous satellite? No, not "fixed to SoT location", because the
>> Moon's orbit makes it MOVE in the sky relative to the stars, while the
>> g.satellite is FIXED in the sky (assuming an equatorial orbit) relative
>> to the stars, so the Moon can't stay behind the g.satellite shadowing
>> it. A satellite at the Lagrange point between Earth and Moon would
>> exhibit this behavior, except over approximately the center of the Moon,
>> I haven't looked to see where on the Moon the SoT actually appears
>> recently.
>
> Uh, not quite. A satellite in geosynchronous orbit will not be seen to
> move relative to the Earth (this is what geosynchronous means), but,
> relative to the stars, will be seen to be in continuous motion.

Oh, yeah, duh, my prose got away from me for a moment. Replace that second
'relative to the stars' with 'relative to the Earth's horizon', and add a
sentence explaining that the Moon doesn't go around the Earth anywhere near
as fast as once a day, and I think I'm good again.

Dave, part of science is admitting when you're wrong

[oriel36]

On May 19, 7:22 am, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
wrote:

Are you kidding me !,I am just scratching the surface here - how a non
spinning moon compares to the spinning Earth in its daily dynamics and
how it turns to the central Sun as a component of its orbital
motion.What an observer on the moon would see of a geosynchronous
satellite as it orbits the Earth at same speed as the planet
rotates,how retrogrades motions are actually resolved and the
differences between the inner and outer planets.What Sir Isaac was
actually doing in defining time,space and motion to suit himself and
his followers who still don't know what he was doing.

Hiding !,I am having a ball and will continue to do so because once
you insist the moon spins,like a flat Earth conclusion,you are going
nowhere and are open to ridicule,not by me but by your own admissions
so you are going to have to get used to it.the Now back to business.

A satellite in a geosynchronous orbit and fixed to a point of the
surface of a rotating Earth will see the circle of illumination twice
as each location on a rotating Earth passes from daylight into
darkness each 24 hour AM/PM cycle and 1461 times for the 4 times the
planet makes a circuit of the Sun or 365 1/4 rotations to one orbital
circuit,of course we register these cycles in a more convenient
365/365/365/366 rotational cycle format insofar as daily rotation and
orbital motions are entirely separate.

So,here again,the empirical cult decides that there are 4 phantom
rotations as they believe there are 1465 rotations in proportion to 4
annual circuits so how you are going to account for these 4 extra
rotations using a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is anyone's guess
but it is up there with Sir Isaac's spinning moon and his
idiosyncratic resolution of retrograde motions.

Of course you have missed the exciting prospect of using modern
imaging up to now so you can declare the moon spins but you can expect
more of the same treatment now that geostationary satellites were
brought into the argument.

[oriel36]

On Apr 16, 11:25 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> oriel36<kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-Hqdx_LUC&
>
> ...No, I'm not gonna go look at some self-published ranting pamphlet you
> found on google, gods know how. Come back when you can actually do some
> celestial mechanics without curling into a whimpering ball of denial.
>
> Dave
> --
> \/DavidDeLaneyposting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that  grows the flower

> It's not the clock that slows the hour  The definition's plain for anyone to see

> Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE        HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>http://www.vic.com/~dbd/- net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.


You only get a few chances if you choose to discuss matter with me so
when you are supposed to click on a link which supports or explains a
point then I suggest you do so before describing the Principia
accurately as a self-published ranting pamphlet that it actually is
and especially as among its assertions is a spinning moon.By his own
admission he was not an astronomer and here again I suggest that you
start listening to an astronomer in a world where there aren't any -
there are guys who think that a magnification exercise constitutes
astronomy but such is the dismal condition astronomy has descended to.

Throop is a different matter as he uses cartoon quotes and while that
may be fine,it is the guys who make salaries and lifestyles out of a
cartoon world and cartoon Universe and really believe it as fact that
presents the major problem for humanity because sooner or later
something really stupid was bound to surface such as human control
over global temperature.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: You only get a few chances if you choose to discuss matter with me so

: when you are supposed to click on a link which supports or explains a
: point then I suggest you do so before describing the Principia

Origel's Newton-phobia blinds him. Almost all the points that show
how misguided his agenda/dogma is have nothing at all to do with Newton.
A very few, like conservation of angular momentum arguments, do.
But that argument isn't necessary, since as a pragmatic matter of
observation, spin axes always point steadily at the stars.
And the fact that he references single bodies to to reference frames.
And the fact that he can't explain libration.
And the related fact that neither axis nor nor the rate of turn
of the moon's face towards earth is related to the orbit.
And many many more. All are simple matters of observation,
and have nothing, not a single thing, to do with Newton.

So, rather than saying "you're nothing but a bunch of Newton cultists"
as response to just about anything and everything, he really has to
address the simple geometric and observational issues (ie, the observed
kinematics, and what objects these observations are referenced to)
in order to convince anybody with two neurons to rub together.

Of course, maybe he doesn't want to be persuasive.
Maybe he just likes the superior feeling he gets when he's convinced
himself that everybody but himself is wrong.

[Wayne Throop]

:: And which means origel is still left without
:: any explanation of libration.

: John Gogo <jfgo...@yahoo.com>
: Libration is nothing more than change which occurs on Earth at one

: location of the observance of the moon in a year round fashion.

Wrong. If that were the cause of libration, it'd happen in a daily cycle,
not a monthly cycle. Why do you bring this refuted, bogus, chestnut
of a fallacy up over and over? Don't you understand the difference
between a day and a month?

( Mind you, there *is* "diurnal libration". But it's a very very very
small portion of libration; the vast majority cycles monthly. )

[Paul Colquhoun]

Still can't answer a simple question.

[Wayne Throop]

: Paul Colquhoun <newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
: Look, if you can't answer, just say so. Changing the subject and

: bringing in an observer on the moon just won't cut it.

And by the way, his point about a selenesynchronous satellite
never disappearing behind the moon is bogus. Choose an observer
at the earth/Sun L1 or L2 point, for example, and you'll see the
selenesynchronous satellite disappear behind the moon everyonce a month.

The point is, origel attempts to find a distinction between a
geosyncronous viewpoint and a selenesynchronous viewpoint, by picking
a additional viewpoint wrt which the synchronous viewpoint disappears
behind the object it's synchronized with. All as an intuition pump
to demonstrate that the earth spins and the moon doesn't. Sadly for
him, earth or moon, works the same way. And they both spin wrt the
background stars.

So basically, he's run out of logic. His attempts to uphold his
peculiar link between spin and viewpoint has fallen apart.
Good luck waiting for him to notice it, let alone admit it.


"You're out of ice? You can't run out of ice!
I thought you can use the water in the air!"
"There *is* no water in this air!
What's your excuse, you run out of muscles?
--- Mr.Incredible and Frozone

"You *know* how to spell justice. It's just ice."
--- Frozone

[Wayne Throop]

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: It is true that from a child's naive point of view,

: the Moon does not spin.

Well duh. From a child's naive point of view, neither does the earth.
Of course, who is anybody to tell origel he can't be a naive child?
But by now, largely, most astronomers have put away such childish things.

"Remember the bad guys on those shows you used to watch on Saturday
mornings? Well, these guys are not like those guys. They won't
exercise restraint because you're children. They will *kill* you
if they get the chance. Do *not* give them that chance."
--- Helen Parr

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 03:00:30 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 18, 10:42�am, "1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
><AmbassadorKil...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:25:00 -0700, The Starmaker
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thu, 16 May 2013 10:53:42 -0700, The Starmaker
>> >> <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >n...@bid.nes wrote:
>>
>> >> >> On May 16, 12:18 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> (snip)
>>
>> >> >> > How you get from an apple falling on the ground to planetary dynamics
>> >> >> > is quite a stretch so terrestrial ballistics does not scale up to
>> >> >> > motions on a celestial level and it is exceptionally foolish to
>> >> >> > believe it does.
>>
>> >> >> � You get there with gravitation, the force that not only describes
>> >> >> ballistic motion near Earth's surface (falling apples, artillery
>> >> >> shells, etc.) but also neatly describes the motions of celestial
>> >> >> objects.
>>
>> >> >> > Scaling observations up from analogies like cars
>> >> >> > moving around a traffic island to planetary dynamics is a different
>> >> >> > matter or indeed the orbital behavior of the moon as seen from Earth
>> >> >> > or anywhere else.
>>
>> >> >> � Flat out stoopid bullshit.
>>
>> >> >> � You would have us believe that the planets are kept in their courses
>> >> >> around the sun (and the moon in its course around Earth) because of
>> >> >> their tires' friction against an invisible road?
>>
>> >> >> � If not, what do you think holds the planets (and moons) in their
>> >> >> courses?
>>
>> >> >> � Mark L. Fergerson
>>
>> >> >you mean What keeps me from falling up? Or what keeps the moon from falling up?
>>
>> >> >i guess the same thing that keeps me from falling down..
>>
>> >> >"Help, i fell down, i cannot fall up!"
>>
>> >> >If I'm on the Moon...
>> >> >i can see the dark side of the Earth.
>>
>> >> >If the moon revolves around the earth
>> >> >do i see the same dark side of the earth
>> >> >if i'm standing on the moon?
>>
>> >> >The Moon only shows one face to the Earth. Fact or fiction? Or, science fact or science fiction fact. Is it the same face? Or a different face?
>>
>> >> It is the same face. �And therein lies the absolute proof and truth
>> >> that the moon rotates on its axis.
>>
>> >Ff it is rotationg, then the face rotates...which means the face is
>> >changing, it's not the same face. What proof and truth are you talking
>> >about?
>>
>> Look down at your feet. �Is the Earth's surface racing by at hundreds
>> of miles an hour beneath them? �No? �Then by your logic the Earth
>> doesn't spin, either.
>>
>> If I stand to your east and face you, I am facing west. �If I walk
>> past you to stand to your west, all the while continuing to face you,
>> do I not need to turn on my axis to accomplish this?
>
>This stuff is funny - walk around Mr Starmaker ,who represents the
>Earth, with an outstretched arm pointing to him at all times and the
>same side always faces him as you walk/orbit and that is what we see
>as the moon orbits us.
>
>The Earth orbits the Sun differently to the moon in that as you walk/
>orbit Mr Starmaker once more,but this time he has turned into the
>Sun,and you have to walk differently in order to keep the Earth
>pointing in the same direction in space just as the planet points
>continuously to polaris.
>
>Go ahead and try it or bribe some kid to do it for you.
>
>Sorry Mr Starmaker,I just couldn't resist answering this one.

I'm sure you couldn't.

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:44:31 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It is not the lack of intelligence that is disturbing

Yes. It really is the lack of intelligence that is so disturbing.

[oriel36]

On May 19, 12:16 pm, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
wrote:

You are fine and all this is expected,when can't accept what you own
eyes are telling you then you have huge problems expanding on all the
other technical issues.The phases of the moon reflect its orbital
motion of the Earth and the single day/night cycle on the lunar
surface is something that has been understood for over 5000 years,that
they decided in the late 17th century through Newton that the moon
spins looks like a blip in the astronomical scheme of things
regardless of how silly it actually is.

Like an ice skater circling a partner with outstretched arms,the moon
orbits the Earth while keeping the same side to us at all times.

Like an ice skater circling a partner,the Earth does an amazing triple
axel as it orbits the Sun -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29SMYaEwGyM

I love people with talent,skill and deep concentration/interpretation
and none of which any of you show presently,that is what makes a cult
so unproductive and lacking creativity as it hears neither the music
of planets nor its earthly version - "as above then so below" and that
is why the analogies are important.

Go ahead empirical drone with your spinning moon,maybe you can find a
flat Earther to discuss your issue with because no more than you can
show me a flat Earth image neither can you show me a spinning moon.

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 04:49:23 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 18, 12:11�pm, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 00:53:07 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> | On May 18, 7:55�am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>> |> In article <96e332e2-88dd-492e-97d3-5c12d4e2b...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>> |>|> oriel36 �<kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> |> >a spinning object will be
>> |> >seen to spin 360 degrees from any point of view
>> |>

>> |> Untrue. �What about the point of view that's in orbit around the object,
>> |> keeping pace with its spin?
>> |>

>> |> --
>> |> � �David Goldfarb � � � � �| "LUM-ber. �*heh!* *heh!*"
>> |> goldfar...@gmail.com � � � |
>> |> goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu �| -- Scott McCloud, "Some Words Albert Likes"
>> |
>> | A geosynchronous satellite with a fix on a location on Earth as it
>> | rotates/spins in space will disappear behind the Earth like and
>> | reappear like so -
>> |
>> |http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Geostationaryjava3...
>>
>> Several points to make here:
>>
>> 1) The wikipedia page this is linked from contains the following text to
>> the immediate left of the image: "Geosynchronous satellites have the
>> advantage of remaining permanently in the same area of the sky, as
>> viewed from a particular location on Earth, and so permanently within
>> view of a given ground station."

>>
>
>An observer on the Earth sees a satellite fixed to the Sea of

>Tranquility location and never sees it disappear behind the moon
>because the moon doesn't spin,an observer on the moon sees a
>geostationary satellite disappear behind the Earth because the Earth
>spins and to maintain a fix on a location on Earth a satellite has to
>go into orbit around the Earth.

An observer anywhere else in the Universe would see that
selenostationary satellite circling the moon just as they would see
geostationary satellites circling the Earth.

>Anyone would think this is difficult when it is common sense,if you
>want the moon to spin then you are going to have to find a way to get
>rid of this observation where a geostationary satellite disappears and
>reappears -
>
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Geostationaryjava3Dsideview.gif

Add the moon to that graphic. You will see the same identical effect
with your selenostationary satellite, differing only in period.

>> Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_satellite
>>
>> 2) This is a computer generated animation, and is thus the product of
>> the "information technology" you keep denigrating. It shows precicely
>> what the programmer intended it to show.
>>
>
>The programmers have no control over a spinning planet and therefore
>no control over anything,they can show what happens to keep a
>geostationary satellite fixed to a location on Earth and that it must
>disappear from view when observed externally but what these
>programmers can't do is show a similar one for a spinning moon and a
>satellite fixed to a location because the moon doesn't spin.

You have successfully proven yourself wrong. Too bad you won't/can't
see/accept that.

[oriel36]

On May 19, 1:15 pm, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 04:49:23 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Geostationaryjava3...

>
> Add the moon to that graphic.  You will see the same identical effect
> with your selenostationary satellite, differing only in period.
>

A cult indoctrinated mind has no style and no class insofar what you
are trying to describe is the orbital behavior of the moon and orbital
motion is moving from place to place where all locations move at the
same speed through space whereas a spinning object has a maximum
equatorial speed diminishing to zero at the polar latitudes.The
graphic shows the latter spinning motion of the Earth and its
rotational traits.

I don't mind that I am presently the only person in tune with
astronomy before mathematicians hijacked the discipline through late
17th century Royal Society empiricism and that I am promoting proper
astronomy in an era of the spinning moon cult,throughout the history
of humanity common decency if not common sense always prevails and in
this case it will happen once again.

> >> Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_satellite
>
> >> 2) This is a computer generated animation, and is thus the product of
> >> the "information technology" you keep denigrating. It shows precicely
> >> what the programmer intended it to show.
>
> >The programmers have no control over a spinning planet and therefore
> >no control over anything,they can show what happens to keep a
> >geostationary satellite fixed to a location on Earth and that it must
> >disappear from view when observed externally but what these
> >programmers can't do is show a similar one for a spinning moon  and a
> >satellite fixed to a location because the moon doesn't spin.
>
> You have successfully proven yourself wrong.  Too bad you won't/can't
> see/accept that.

I didn't ask if you are young children in which case you are
excused,integrity,dignity and pride are something which only apply to
adults who lead decent lives and never try to undermine human
endeavor,achievements and the heritage they receive from the past,only
the vicious strain of empiricism started by Newton did that and I
assure you I am not anti-Newton,it is so easy to take his agenda apart
that he registers as a nuisance regardless of how dominant his
followers have become because while figureheads like Hitler are
lightening rods for an ideology,it is the momentum of the followers in
continuing the Nazi ideology that created the destructive endeavor of
last century.The speculative/predictive agenda of the vicious strain
of empiricism is no different and just as destructive as it preys on
students who are indoctrinated into a belief that astronomy is
dominated by mathematicians.

The 'information technology' age generation !,just more money grubbing
scammers selling themselves as benefactors of humanity.

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-19, oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> | It was a like for like observation,there is no question attached
>> | because the answer is so obvious that it demonstrates a lack of pride
>> | in oneself should you or anyone else fail to comprehend that a
>> | satellite fixed to a spinning Earth will temporarily disappear behind
>> | the spinning Earth when seen from a non spinning moon while the Earth
>>
>> Look, if you can't answer, just say so. Changing the subject and
>> bringing in an observer on the moon just won't cut it.
>>
>> If you can't answer, a simple "I don't know" will suffice. There is no
>> shame in admitting you don't know, but ducking and weaving to avoid
>> answering just make you look like you have something to hide.
>

> Are you kidding me !,I am just scratching the surface here -

Yes, we have long suspected we are just scratching the surface of things you
don't actually know but are willing to cut and paste endless paragraphs
partially about and/or unrelated-to.

> Hiding !,I am having a ball and will continue to do so because once
> you insist the moon spins,like a flat Earth conclusion,you are going
> nowhere and are open to ridicule,not by me

... well, certainly not by anyone ELSE? Since the Moon _does_ spin? Eppur
si spuinne? So if anyone's gonna ridicule us here it had better be you. Goss
isn't that good at it.

> A satellite in a geosynchronous orbit and fixed to a point of the
> surface of a rotating Earth will see the circle of illumination twice
> as each location on a rotating Earth passes from daylight into
> darkness each 24 hour AM/PM cycle

... so ... a geosnch satellite goes around the Earth TWICE each day now. Got
it. Amazing. For 'circle of illumination' I'm thinking you PROBABLY mean the
time when the Sun is directly behind the Earth from the satellite's point of
view, so that it illuminates the atmosphere on all edges equally? For a
geosynch satellite in the ecliptic, of course, because one over the equator
will be anywhere from 23 degrees N to 23 degrees S of the ecliptic at midnight
depending on where in the year we are.

> So,here again,the empirical cult decides that there are 4 phantom
> rotations as they believe there are 1465 rotations in proportion to 4
> annual circuits so how you are going to account for these 4 extra
> rotations using a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is anyone's guess

Oh, it's easy. In those 4 annual circuits - 4 years - the Earth has gone around
the Sun 4 times. So there's a difference of 4 between "number of times the
Earth has turned to face the Sun the same direction" and 'number of times the
Earth has turned to face Sirius, or Betelgeuse, or random star in the Zodiac,
the same direction'.

See, if you consider a planet tide-locked, like the Moon is to Earth, to the
Sun? Then it stays facing the Sun the same direction all year. But the stars
behind the Sun go once around the sky. Giving a difference of 1, between the
two numbers, per year. Checking with various rotational speeds shows this
difference does not change; it's from geometric considerations. (Geometry long
predates Newton, you know; do you want to extend your hypnotic conspiracy back
to the ancient Greeks? No extra charge?)

So in 4 years, you'll build up a difference of 4 between 'days as seen with
respect to the Sun rising and setting' and 'days as seen with respect to the
stars rising and setting'. That's all it is, and some day when you realize what
is actually going on you are going to be SO mad at yourself, and embarrassed,
for missing something this simple this long WITH people trying to explain it to
you from every side too.

Dave, I predict that in 4 years oriel36 will be at least 4 days further from
reality than he was to start with
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower

It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>

http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/19/13 5/19/13 12:10 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> but I assure you that I am in good company in the matter of non

> rotation [of the moon].

Only in your personal dreams and fantasies.

In physics, for a macroscopic object like the moon, the word rotation has a
clear and definite meaning: a given object is rotating iff it has non-zero
angular momentum; we use the word "spin" to refer to its angular momentum with
the angular momentum of its center-of-mass subtracted. Angular momentum is, of
course, the conserved Noether current corresponding to rotational invariance; it
is naturally a two-form.

Note this definition is completely independent of coordinates, and therefore
also independent of observer -- ALL observers will agree that a given object
does or does not rotate, and does or does not spin. In particular, whether or
not some given point or object is ever occluded ("disappears") for any
particular observer is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

The moon most definitely rotates, and most definitely spins. Ditto for the
earth, the sun, every planet and moon, and AFAIK every astronomical object ever
observed closely enough to tell.

You are abusing the vocabulary when you claim the moon does not spin (or
rotate). You are also acting very arrogantly and stupidly. Indeed, contrary to
your claim above, if you insist that "the moon does not rotate" to any physicist
or astronomer, you will be treated with complete disdain. Because unlike you,
they know what the word means.

[Note that "spin" has a completely different meaning in the
context of quantum theory, and "rotation" is essentially
unused. Angular momentum, however, is very important.]


Tom Roberts

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

that about sums it "up."

> observation, spin axes always point steadily at the {particular constellation
of] stars. of course,
there's always going to be "one star," if you look with more
resolution.

[oriel36]

On May 19, 6:24 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/19/13 5/19/13   12:10 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > but I assure you that I am in good company in the matter of non
> > rotation [of the moon].
>
> Only in your personal dreams and fantasies.
>

Galileo and Kepler opposed the assertion of a spinning moon and not a
single astronomer in history ever proposed a spinning moon -

http://archive.org/stream/popularinquiryin00gumprich#page/4/mode/2up

The dream and fantasies are all yours and so is the indignity and lack
of integrity.

> In physics, for a macroscopic object like the moon, the word rotation has a
> clear and definite meaning: a given object is rotating iff it has non-zero
> angular momentum; we use the word "spin" to refer to its angular momentum with
> the angular momentum of its center-of-mass subtracted. Angular momentum is, of
> course, the conserved Noether current corresponding to rotational invariance; it
> is naturally a two-form.
>

Thanks for the empirical voodoo but let me define a few things that
were never defined properly before insofar as empiricists love
'definitions'.

Rotation/Spin - Does not move from place to place,has a maximum
equatorial speed that diminishes to zero at its axis.

Revolution/orbital motion - moves from place to place where all
elements of the object move with equal speed.

The Earth both spins and revolves/orbits the central Sun.

The moon only orbits the central Earth but does not have any
characteristics of intrinsic rotation.

Get back to me when you accept the common sense definitions that
everyone else here has so much difficulty with.

[Quadibloc]

On May 19, 6:06 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I love people with talent,skill and deep concentration/interpretation
> and none of which any of you show presently,that is what makes a cult
> so unproductive and lacking creativity as it hears neither the music
> of planets nor its earthly version - "as above then so below" and that
> is why the analogies are important.

As above, so below:

I know where that _came_ from.

Verum, sine Mendacio, certum et verissimum:

Quod est Inferius est sicut quod est Superius, et quod est Superius
est sicut quod est Inferius, ad perpetranda Miracula Rei Unius. Et
sicut res omnes fuerunt ab Uno, meditatione unius, sic Omnes Res natae
ab hac una Re, adaptatione.

Pater eius est Sol. Mater eius est Luna. Portavit illud Ventus in
Ventre suo. Nutrix eius Terra est. Pater omnis Telesmi totius Mundi
est hic. Virtus eius integra est si versa fuerit in Terram. Separabis
Terram ab Igne, subtile ab spisso, suaviter, magno cum ingenio.

Ascendit a Terra in Coelum, iterumque descendit in Terram, et recipit
Vim superiorum et inferiorum. Sic habebis Gloriam totius Mundi. Ideo
fugiet a te omnis Obscuritas. Haec est totius Fortitudinis Fortitudo
fortis, quia vincet Omnem rem subtilem, Omnemque Solidam penetrabit.

Sic Mundus creatus est. Hinc erunt Adaptationes Mirabiles, quarum
Modus est hic. Itaque vocatus sum Hermes Trismegistus, habens tres
partes Philosophiae totius Mundi.

Completum est quod dixi de Operatione Solis.

Or, in English:

True and without falsehood, certain and most true:

That which is below is like that which is above, and that which is
above is like that which is below, for the perpetuation of the One.
And as all things came from the One, through the mediation of the One,
so all things are born in one fashion, according to their nature.

The father of it is the Sun. The mother of it is the Moon. The wind
has carried it in its belly. The Earth feeds it. It is the father of
all competed things in the world.
Its virtue is whole when it is directed towards the Earth. Separate
the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the gross, gently, greatly
with ingenuity.

It ascends from Earth to Heaven, and descends in return to the Earth,
and receives life from above and from below. Thus you shall have all
the glories of the world. All that causes things to be obscured shall
flee before you. Here is the strength of strengths, as it conquers
every subtle thing and penetrates everything solid.

So was the world created. From here there shall be marvellous
transformations, as this is the way by which they are accomplished.
Thus am I called Hermes Trismestigus, having the three parts of the
Philosophy of the whole world.

This is the completion of the exposition of the Operation of the Sun.

This is Hermetism - and alchemy - something Newton dabbled in.

John Savard

[alie...@gmail.com]

On May 19, 1:27 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:


(snip to the crash)

> ...let me define a few things that

> were never defined properly before insofar as empiricists love
> 'definitions'.
>
> Rotation/Spin - Does not move from place to place,has a maximum
> equatorial speed that diminishes to zero at its axis.

We have come (full circle) back where we started. How do you
determine if the immediate point you are standing on has a "speed"?
How do you determine if you are near Earth's equator or one of its
poles?

You have two options; you can make multiple long-term references to
external objects like stars and other planets (which themselves are in
motion, thus complicating your measurements) or you can refer to
purely local phenomena, like a Foucault pendulum, which all by itself
will tell you where you are WRT the body's equator and poles.

(If you have a third option, please, by all means, describe it well
enough that others can try it.)

As originally, you will be unable to explain why the Foucault method
will not work on the moon (it will, of course) so you will just assert
that it won't.

If you consider the first method the only valid one, answer this; an
observer standing in the center of Korolev crater (nearly centered on
the moon's 'far side') will observe the entire universe rise from his
east, pass overhead, then sink in the west. Why does that not prove
that the moon rotates/spins?


Mark L. Fergerson

[Wayne Throop]

:: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
:: I am having a ball and will continue to do so because once you insist

:: the moon spins,like a flat Earth conclusion,you are going nowhere and
:: are open to ridicule

: David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net>
: ... well, certainly not by anyone ELSE? Since the Moon _does_ spin?
: Eppur si spuinne?

Indeed, the funny thing here is that we're taking the exact *opposite*
to a "flat earth" (or pre-copernican) stance. The argument then was
"just *look* at the earth; its surface doesn't move at all; just LOOK",
and Galileo noted "Eppur si muove". Origel now tells us, just *look*
at the moon (but don't think about it too much or examine it too closely,
that way lies the empericism of the archfiend Newton), its face doesnt'
turn away at all; just LOOK (but again, don't think, and pay no attention
to that libration behind the curtain)".

Another funny thing (our two, our two funny things... ok, amongst the
many funny things) is origel's frame-jumping. To reach the "moon isn't
rotating" conclusion he has to use two different frames of reference
on each celestial object. The funny thing being, he's all against
frame-jumping... except when he does it.

And again, none of this has anything to do with Newton.
It's all Galielo at most; and some doesn't require him.

[The Starmaker]

The rotation and spin of the earth, sun, moon, and all the other bodies
are all parts of a moving machine.

You all failed to look at the machinery that makes everything rotate and
spin.


And once in a thousand years I have to come here and guide you in the
right direction...

you jusr need to...move up a level. Yous seem to be...stuck.



The Starmaker


you wanna cheat sheet, don't ya

[oriel36]

On May 19, 11:24 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 19, 1:27 pm,oriel36<kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (snip to the crash)
>
> > ...let me define a few things that
> > were never defined properly before insofar as empiricists love
> > 'definitions'.
>
> > Rotation/Spin - Does not move from place to place,has a maximum
> > equatorial speed that diminishes to zero at its axis.
>
>   We have come (full circle) back where we started. How do you
> determine if the immediate point you are standing on has a "speed"?
> How do you determine if you are near Earth's equator or one of its
> poles?
>

Very easy to comprehend and one of my favorite ways to understand the
diminishing speed of the Earth from a maximum 1037.5 miles an hour
down to zero at the polar latitudes - it is also original with me and
I am quite proud of it as any student, who asks such a question will
get a definitive answer.

Any person who lives in the higher latitudes such as Northern Europe
will immediately recognize the effects as they travel closer to
equatorial latitudes but not so much the other way around .Coming from
the Western isles of Europe or Scandinavia, a person traveling to
Florida or SoCal will immediately notice how quickly daylight turns to
darkness compared to their home locations - the answer,of course is
that the latitudinal speeds are quicker closer towards the Equator
hence a location passes quickly through the circle of illumination
compared to the higher latitudes where twilights are more drawn out
and longer.

Here is an effect that is so easy to understand yet empiricists can't
grasp it even though it is so much common sense as they imagine
twilight lengths do not correlate to surface latitudinal speeds.

[oriel36]

On May 20, 2:29 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> oriel36wrote:

Oh Brother !.- here you go.

Rotation/spin = maximum equatorial speed diminishing to zero at the
North/South poles.

Revolution/orbital motion = all parts of the Earth move through space
at the same speed.

Imagine so many people,including you,have difficulties with something
as simple as the two separate motions of the Earth or have I got you
wrong ? - hard to say with that post.

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

Because Oriel doesn't want it to.

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

...has claimed squatter's rights to the space between your ears.

[oriel36]

On May 19, 6:24 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> You are abusing the vocabulary when you claim the moon does not spin (or
> rotate). You are also acting very arrogantly and stupidly. Indeed, contrary to
> your claim above, if you insist that "the moon does not rotate" to any physicist
> or astronomer, you will be treated with complete disdain. Because unlike you,
> they know what the word means.

> Tom Roberts

Astronomers indeed !,what I wouldn't give to encounter another
astronomer with a clear sense of the difference between revolution/
orbital motion and rotation/spin insofar as the Earth both spins and
orbits while the moon simply orbits the Earth,is seen to do so and
contrary to the minor blip on the astronomical landscape via Newton
and his followers who imagined a spinning moon.

An orbiting object moves through space where all parts of its motion
move at the same speed whether it crust or core.

The parts of a spinning/rotating object move at different speeds so
that crust moves at a faster speed than the core and the maximum
equatorial circumferences moves quicker than latitudes closer to the
North/South poles.

One thing I discovered Roberts over the years is that empiricists not
only do not know what Newton was doing with his absolute/relative
time,space and motion definitions - they don't want to know as they
cobbled together a story in the early 20th century out of ignorance of
their technical meaning even allowing that Sir Isaac was distorting
astronomical terms to suit himself and his 'predictive' agenda.

In short,you have somebody who,for the first time in over 250 years,
can actually read what Sir Isaac was trying to do and I assure you it
is a horror story insofar as it hinders the ability to research
astronomical and natural terrestrial phenomena in any sort of
productive way.It may keep a few empiricists in lifestyles and
salaries based on chanting voodoo and turns the wider population off
astronomy and its links to terrestrial sciences.

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-20, oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 6:24 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> You are abusing the vocabulary when you claim the moon does not spin (or
>> rotate). You are also acting very arrogantly and stupidly. Indeed, contrary
>> to your claim above, if you insist that "the moon does not rotate" to any
>> physicist
>> or astronomer, you will be treated with complete disdain. Because unlike you,
>> they know what the word means.
>

> Astronomers indeed !,what I wouldn't give to encounter another
> astronomer with a clear sense of the difference between revolution/
> orbital motion and rotation/spin insofar as the Earth both spins and
> orbits while the moon simply orbits the Earth,

Well, a), you can't have MORE tea until you've first HAD some, so I don't
know why you're talking about 'another astronomer' there, since you're not
one. at all., and b) no actual astronomer will have the same "clear sense"
you have, because your "clear sense" is flat-out wrong. The Moon orbits the
Earth _and_ spins. Both approximately once an Earth month. The Moon's
equatorial velocity, therefore, is, let's see - 2 pi times 1,738.14 km divided
by 29.53 days (sidereal) - 369.83 km/day, or 15.41 km/hr. Not particularly
slow; nowhere near slow enough to be "unmeasurable". Nowhere near Earth's
equatorial speed, of course.

This velocity is enough to keep the Moon turning as it orbits so the same face
keeps pointing towards Earth, approximately. (See Wayne's point, oft-repeated
and never acknowledged by you at all, about libration.) If the Moon had no
equatorial velocity, then it would not TURN as it orbited, and would keep the
same face always pointed towards any given STAR... and from Earth we'd see its
sides in succession, backwards, over the course of a month, as it went around
the Earth with the same face pointed towards the same direction relative to
the stars.

"Turning so the same face keeps pointing towards what it orbits" is TURNING.
Not ORBITING. It is SPIN; it is ROTATION. You still refuse to do the simple
experiments with nickels, pennies, and/or dimes that would SHOW you this
unmistakably, and still think somehow that "turning to keep your arm pointed
towards what you're walking around" somehow 'doesn't count' as turning. It
does, and that's where the rotation you're trying desperately to deny comes in.

> contrary to the minor blip on the astronomical landscape via Newton
> and his followers who imagined a spinning moon.

As every astronomer in the world, or above it, and every physicist too, uses
Newton's laws of motion as basic elements of their crafts, I'm at a loss to
how you can imagine Newton's influence to be some sort of "minor blip". Even
WITHOUT taking calculus into account. This must be like that New Yorker cover
where the entire rest of the USA was a thin strip on the other side of the
river; narcissism on a grand scale.

> An orbiting object moves through space where all parts of its motion
> move at the same speed whether it crust or core.

That's what we've been trying to TELL you. Orbiting is a TRANSLATIONAL motion.
It does not induce any sort of twisting with respect to inertial reference
frames, the background of the fixed stars.

> The parts of a spinning/rotating object move at different speeds so
> that crust moves at a faster speed than the core and the maximum
> equatorial circumferences moves quicker than latitudes closer to the
> North/South poles.

Correct. AND THE MOON DOES THIS. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't
change that it DOES rotate, at an easily-measurable speed, and one which is
easy to calculate, see above. Let me know if you need it in miles per hour
to actually understand it, I know you might have some issues with trying to
comprehend a measurement system instituted by Napoleon.

> In short,you have somebody who,for the first time in over 250 years,
> can actually read what Sir Isaac was trying to do

...He'd laugh in your face, and would dismiss you as just another crank. Which,
to be fair, you are, but we have hope you can be reformed and can actually
learn where your error is. He wouldn't let you have access to the Mint either.

> and turns the wider population off
> astronomy and its links to terrestrial sciences.

Oh, I assure you the 'wider population' thinks you're an insane crank as well,
the few that have actually heard of you. (I hope that's not part of the anger
driving this, that everyone knows who Newton is, and only the very few people
who still use Usenet and frequent these groups, plus your parents, have any
idea who you are?)

Dave

[Wayne Throop]

: David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net>
: The Moon orbits the Earth _and_ spins. Both approximately once an

: Earth month. The Moon's equatorial velocity, therefore, is, let's see
: - 2 pi times 1,738.14 km divided by 29.53 days (sidereal) - 369.83
: km/day, or 15.41 km/hr. Not particularly slow; nowhere near slow
: enough to be "unmeasurable". Nowhere near Earth's equatorial speed,
: of course.

:: <kellehe...@gmail.com>
:: An orbiting object moves through space where all parts of its motion

:: move at the same speed whether it crust or core.

Actually, that's not the case with the moon. If the moon faces the earth
(and you know it does) then the farside point is moving about 30 kph
faster than the nearside point. Which means, the moon "has a definite
equatorial velocity (it *has* to, since if you take that observed (again,
because it faces the earth during its orbit) 30kph difference, and make it
relative to the moon by subtracting the moon's core velocity of 15kph, and
you get an equatorial velocity of the surface of the moon wrt its center.

Now... why does origel not see this obviosity? Simple. Because when he
discusses spin and "equatorial velocity" he uses a completely different
reference frames for equatorial velocity and orbital velocity. So to him,
wearing origel-tinted sunglasses as he does, he can ignore than equatorial
velocity, because it's wrt the "wrong frame". So his tinted sunglasses
makes the obviousity invisible to him. The difference in orbital velocity
between the nearside point and the farside point is irrelevant to him,
because when he jumps frames to discuss spin, the difference in speed
doesn't exist anymore, because he's sleight-of-numbers-ed it away by
insisting that you use a frame in which the moon is not moving wrt the
earth (or more specifically, the ECMFNIF.

That's where he makes most of his mistakes (or, if you will, mere
obfuscations). Frame jumping in the middle of describing a planet's
orbit and spin.

And note especially, in his statement "::" above, origel manages to confuse
even himself and use the ECMFNIF to discuss the moon's *motion* (which is
clear because it's the only frame in which its "crust and core" have the
same speed), when in fact, the moon doesn't move in that frame.

You see? Even after *years* of frame jumping, he can get himself
confused. And *that*'s why no serious modern astronomers do the origel
boogie wrt frames; they usually use one for everything, especially for
spin, because it's far too easy to make mistakes when doing otherwise.

[The Starmaker]

you got me wrong...
i'm talking about the 'force' that pushes the moon...what makes the
moon...fall down.

[oriel36]

Oh Mr Starmaker,there are so many levels to this thing and not a
single one of these guys have an idea how it all plays out
historically,technically and bottom line but I assure you I do.

You have to get to that period in history when the empiricists really
got into trouble,Sir Isaac had rejected an interstellar medium so
they couldn't study electromagnetic radiation or any radiation yet
they were in love with the voodoo and the belief that Sir Isaac had
bridged the divide between experimental sciences and astronomy or what
amounts to the same thing,a falling apple and an orbiting planet -
talk amount a wild leap of the imagination !.Anyway the literature at
the time shows them in big trouble,unable to change and not knowing
what to do next,click on the link and you will see 'falling' objects
discussed -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425


So Albert comes along and dumps aether/a medium on Sir Isaac as
'absolute space' and so they cobbled together a story about all things
being relative and what have you,borrowed concepts from H.G.Wells 'The
Time Machine' and 100 years later everyone talks about brainpower of
Einstein and what have you.


"In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least
formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether'';" Einstein

That is why you are dealing with a cult because when faced with what
Sir Isaac actually thought of a medium/aether and created the dilemma
for the guys in the mid 19th century when they wanted to research
electromagnetic properties,they simply don't see it,for them it only
matters that 'special relativity' rejects an aether that Sir Isaac had
already rejected -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Isaac Newton 1704,Optics

Scriptwriters have nothing on empiricists !.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/19/13 5/19/13 - 3:27 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> On May 19, 6:24 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 5/19/13 5/19/13 12:10 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>>> but I assure you that I am in good company in the matter of non
>>> rotation [of the moon].
>> Only in your personal dreams and fantasies.
>
> Galileo and Kepler opposed the assertion of a spinning moon

Quotes, please. I VERY MUCH doubt this.

Of course the nomenclature has EVOLVED, and their notions of "spin" were rather
different from ours today. I point out that you are NOT living in the 17th century.

> and not a
> single astronomer in history ever proposed a spinning moon -

Not a single mathematician has proposed that 2+2=4, either. People do not write
about the obvious, and it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that the moon spins with a period
equal to its orbital period (modulo differences due to the rotation of earth and
its orbit).

It is really quite simple: if the moon did not spin it could
not keep the same face toward the earth as it orbits; it does.

Moreover, the nomenclature has EVOLVED. Galileo and Kepler did not know about
Noether's theorem, and all it entails. Nor did they know about non-Euclidean
geometry, and the Lorentzian manifolds of GR.


> http://archive.org/stream/popularinquiryin00gumprich#page/4/mode/2up

OK, you managed to find another crank who got his words published.


> [...] let me define a few things that

> were never defined properly before insofar as empiricists love
> 'definitions'.

How silly. They have been well defined for centuries. But the definitions have
evolved as our knowledge has improved.

> Rotation/Spin - Does not move from place to place,has a maximum
> equatorial speed that diminishes to zero at its axis.

That is a VERY INADEQUATE attempt at a definition. It does not capture the
essence of rotation at all. Ditto for your other attempts.


Tom Roberts

[oriel36]

On May 20, 6:41 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/19/13 5/19/13 - 3:27 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 6:24 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/19/13 5/19/13   12:10 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> >>> but I assure you that I am in good company in the matter of non
> >>> rotation [of the moon].
> >> Only in your personal dreams and fantasies.
>
> > Galileo and Kepler opposed the assertion of a spinning moon
>
> Quotes, please. I VERY MUCH doubt this.
>

You don't know your history Roberts and if I have to give you an
education then just get in line with everyone else before you type a
response again -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJAS0eQ64C&pg=PA78&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false


You are fine as long as you are chanting voodoo and captilizing words
as if that meant something however when faced with the clear technical
distinction between a rotating celestial object as distinct from an
orbiting object you fail to understand that they are first and
foremost completely different motions .

Do you wish me to explain again that a spinning/rotating object has a
maximum equatorial speed and parts of the object rotate at different
speeds whereas a revolving/orbiting object where all parts move
through space at the same speed.That is what Kepler was discussing,not
rotation.

[The Starmaker]

to put it simply..
the moon is a component of the earth.
You have a large gear, the earth...then you have the small gear, the moon.
these gears work together.
if you understand 'how gears work'..
then you can understand how the moon and the earth work.

it's not rockit science...it's mechanical.

talk to a car mechanic..
he's explain this moon earth business if you're still having trouble...
but don't ask a scientist because ...they don't know.

The Starmaker

[Quadibloc]

On May 20, 12:00 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You don't know your history Roberts and  if I have to give you an
> education then just get in line with everyone else  before you type a
> response again -

Oh, very good. At first I didn't see what your point was, but on
reading around the quote to get context, the intent became clear: the
inhabitants of the Moon in Kepler's _Somnium_ called the Earth "Volva"
since they saw it rotating, as it kept presenting a different face to
them. Thus, the conclusion is that the inhabitants of the Earth would,
by that logic, not regard the Moon as rotating.

John Savard

[alie...@gmail.com]

So then, you are making reference to an external object, the sun.

> Here is an effect that is so easy to understand yet empiricists can't
> grasp it even though it is so much common sense as they imagine
> twilight lengths do not correlate to surface latitudinal speeds.

As I asked before, why does this not demonstrate for an observer at
crater Korolev that the moon rotates/spins?


Mark L. Fergerson

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

so, does he assert that the stars do not spin around Moon?

[Wayne Throop]

:: <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
:: Any person who lives in the higher latitudes such as Northern Europe

:: will immediately recognize the effects as they travel closer to
:: equatorial latitudes but not so much the other way around .Coming
:: from the Western isles of Europe or Scandinavia, a person traveling
:: to Florida or SoCal will immediately notice how quickly daylight
:: turns to darkness compared to their home locations - the answer,of
:: course is

The angle of the horizon wrt the sun's trajectory, rather obviously.
The sun's angular velocity (you know what angular speed is, right? No?
Look it up) is the same in both cases. And since the speed at which the
sun moves across the sky is due to the earth's spin, it's the same no
matter if you are at equator or pole. However, what *is* different is
the angle at which it approaches the horizon. Which then affects the
speed at which the sun *crosses* the horizon.

I mean... DUH. The actual tangential velocity at any point on earth
has nothing at all to do with it, and it's obvious from geometry alone
that that's the case.

:: that the latitudinal speeds are quicker closer towards the Equator

:: hence a location passes quickly through the circle of illumination
:: compared to the higher latitudes where twilights are more drawn out
:: and longer.

Well, according to what origel thinks a "circle of illumination" is, and
supposing that he's talking about the circular path from terminator to
terminator and accross it, note that a point on the equator goes through
this circle "faster" ie, higher speed... but it's a bigger circle.
(We are, of course, considering this at the equinox, so axiel tilt
doesn't enter into it.)

That's why the actual comparison is angular velocity normal to the
horizon. That's the real issue here.

I mean, DUH.

: "nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com>
: So then, you are making reference to an external object, the sun.

True, but in this case, irrelevant. For these purposes,
(talking about sunset), you are *necessarily* talking about
earth's relationship to the sun.

And take another planet who's mean solar day length is the same as
earth's, but with an equator having half the circumference. Neverthess,
compare the equatorial twilight on these two planets, and they'd
be equal. Clearly, the tangential velocity simply doesn't matter.
What matters is the angle of the sun's trajectory wrt the horizon.

[Quadibloc]

On May 20, 4:30 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> so, does he assert that the stars do not spin around Moon?

He acknowledges that the stars are seen to rise and set by an observer
on the Moon. But the cause of this is that the Moon orbits the Earth,
in his view. There is no spinning motion of the Moon in addition to
this orbital motion, which is why the stars take a month to rise and
set. (Well, actually a few days less, because of the Earth's orbital
motion around the Sun.)

John Savard

[oriel36]

Don't be ridiculous.

[oriel36]

Of course you draw a wrong conclusion as the correlation between
latitudinal speeds and twilight lengths opens up and entirely new area
in the study of light and solar radiation.Up until now,they have been
trying to refer variations in twilight lengths to the exceptionally
poor idea of the angle of the Sun hitting the horizon but the
satellite in geosynchronous orbit around the Earth puts a stop to that
notion as it looks in on a location passing through the circle of
illumination.

The Sun will still be visible to the satellite long after the location
on Earth has passed into darkness hence the circle of illumination is
a local affair extending only as far as the atmosphere so that
latitudinal speeds alone are responsible for twilight lengths rather
than trying to project cause to the distant Sun and its position to
the horizon.Again,this is a huge area of study based on radiation and
the nature of light.

> > Here is an effect that is so easy to understand yet empiricists can't
> > grasp it even though it is so much common sense as they imagine
> > twilight lengths do not correlate to surface latitudinal speeds.
>
>   As I asked before, why does this not demonstrate for an observer at
> crater Korolev that the moon rotates/spins?
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson

The person on the Martian crater sees the moon orbit the Earth like we
see all natural satellites circle their parent planets.The moon is far
too close to the Earth to make sense of its phases in orbital terms in
the same way the phases of Venus register that planet's orbital
circuit around the Sun but hopefully the images are enjoyable enough
to draw attention to orbital circuits and the single day/night phase
experienced on the moon solely due to its orbital motion -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg

[The Starmaker]

You didn't read my...other book, did you? It's in the Science Journal...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abcd.jpg

The purpose of our moon is to help earth create the ocean.

Chapter: Leaves to Ocean


The moon pulls the water from the leaves, unto the ground, creating seas which carry into an ocean. The moon is an ocean machine.

[oriel36]

> You didn't read my...other book, did you? It's in the Science Journal...http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/...

>
> The purpose of our moon is to help earth create the ocean.
>
> Chapter: Leaves to Ocean
>
> The moon pulls the water from the leaves, unto the ground, creating seas which carry into an ocean. The moon is an ocean machine.

You are funny sometimes but ultimately it is students that suffer from
the lack of interest in terrestrial sciences and astronomy which it is
something you and the empiricists forget.I can have a great time with
the amusing side of things but that only comes from being comfortable
with genuine science and its non aggressive nature and even that time
when humanity jumped the tracks with science in a specific way back a
few hundred years ago.

You want to read a real book by a genuine empiricist on tides and the
moon,albeit it was the start of the agenda where analogies at a human
level were applied to terrestrial effects then the best book/essay I
have seen is from John Wallace to Robert Boyle when Newton was only a
kid -

http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/1-22/263.full.pdf+html

Now this is an adventure,not the bellylaugh you seek but in the true
spirit of discovery and so what if most of what if what Wallace wrote
was lacking in detail,wrong in places and missing data which is now
available,it did allow research in areas that were missing before and
haven't been dealt with since including the cause of natural noon
variations which I have explained in this thread.

[alie...@gmail.com]

I am drawing no conclusions. You wrote:

"Rotation/Spin - Does not move from place to place,has a maximum
equatorial speed that diminishes to zero at its axis."

And I asked :

"How do you determine if the immediate point (of Earth's surface)

you are standing on has a "speed"? How do you determine if you are
near Earth's equator or one of its poles?"

...to which you responded (in part):

...the answer,of course is

that the latitudinal speeds are quicker closer towards the Equator
hence a location passes quickly through the circle of illumination
compared to the higher latitudes where twilights are more drawn out
and longer.

> The Sun will still be visible to the satellite long after the location
> on Earth has passed into darkness hence the circle of illumination is
> a local affair extending only as far as the atmosphere so that
> latitudinal speeds alone are responsible for twilight lengths rather
> than trying to project cause to the distant Sun and its position to
> the horizon.Again,this is a huge area of study based on radiation and
> the nature of light.

So clearly, a person on the surface of the Earth can determine 1)
that Earth rotates because they can observe the sun rise in the east,
cross the sky, and sink to the West, and 2) determine their latitude
by the local duration of twilight.

I then asked

"...why does this not demonstrate for an observer at

crater Korolev that the moon rotates/spins?"

> The person on the Martian crater

Ah, I see the source of confusion here; I was unclear. Korolev is
not a crater on Mars, it is a crater on Earth's moon, on the side that
does not (in this geological epoch) face Earth.

Here, let me clarify:

Why does your stated method for determining that 1) Earth rotates
and that 2) one can determine one's latitude, not work for an observer
standing roughly on the center of the surface of the moon that does
not currently face Earth, since such an observer will clearly observe
the sun rise and set and can determine their latitude the same as can
you or I on Earth's surface?


Mark L. Fergerson

[oriel36]

>   Mark L. Fergerson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korolev_(Martian_crater)

[Paul Colquhoun]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korolev_(lunar_crater)


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

"Phases" isn't the issue. The observer on Mars ~will~ see all faces
of the moon as it rotates synchronously with its orbit around the
Earth. The observer will see the moon rotate on its axis.

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

Gravity. That's all. Just gravity.

Well, that and maybe the inverse cheese force...

[Quadibloc]

On page 264, this is the first time I've seen an _eszet_ in English
text. (For that Discourse is to be lllked upone onely as an _Eßay_ of
the _general Hypothesis ;)!

John Savard

[Wayne Throop]

: "nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com>

: You [.. which is to say, origel..] wrote:
:
: "Rotation/Spin - Does not move from place to place,has a maximum
: equatorial speed that diminishes to zero at its axis."
:
: And I asked :
:
: "How do you determine if the immediate point (of Earth's surface) you
: are standing on has a "speed"? How do you determine if you are near
: Earth's equator or one of its poles?"
:
: ...to which you responded (in part):
:
: ...the answer,of course is that the latitudinal speeds are quicker
: closer towards the Equator hence a location passes quickly through the
: circle of illumination compared to the higher latitudes where
: twilights are more drawn out and longer.

The more important point to note is "does not move from place to place and
has an equatorial speed that dimishes to zero at it's axis" as origel's
method of telling if an object spins. Since earth is in orbit, it is
moving from place to place, so it's not spinning.

Of course, origel thinks the earth *is* spinning, and he achieves this
doublethink by swapping frames as is convenient to support his dogma.
It's doubtful he knows that's what he's doing, but it's clear that's
what's going on. It is crucial for his dogma that he use two distinct
frames to describe the same celestial object (in this case, earth), but it
applies generally. If he did not, if he used the same frame to describe
both movement and spin, it'd be obvious that moving objects can have
equatorial velocity (especially that the moon does), and thus he has to
have a double standard to insulate himself from the obvious.

[oriel36]

On May 21, 11:52 am, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
wrote:

Fair enough.

http://archive.org/stream/popularinquiryin00gumprich#page/4/mode/2up

Galileo uses a different argument using a line drawn from the moon to
the Earth rather than Kepler's slingshot argument against a spinning
moon so that if you have one outstretched arm pointing at a central
object (Earth) and the other outstretched arm pointing externally as
you aeroplane your way around the Earth imitating the moon's orbital
motion you eventually point at the Sun and scribe an arc through the
background stars.

This is not about a ridiculous spinning moon and who said what 400
years ago,the fact is that as the Earth and other planets orbit the
Sun they do not aeroplane it but with with outstretched arms while
keeping one arm point to the same external point (imitating axial
orientation),a person has to walk (orbit) forwards,then sideways and
then backwards in completing a planetary circuit while a lunar circuit
of the Earth,in keeping the same arm pointed continuously at the
center is a straightforward affair.

You guys want to go against Galileo and Kepler even though none of you
are shy in promoting these guys before then be my guest but for the
sake of a spinning moon !,c'mon guys,it is worse than defending a flat
Earth and not worth it.

[Wayne Throop]

:: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
:: Of course you draw a wrong conclusion as the correlation between

:: latitudinal speeds and twilight lengths opens up and entirely new
:: area in the study of light and solar radiation.Up until now,they have
:: been trying to refer variations in twilight lengths to the
:: exceptionally poor idea of the angle of the Sun hitting the horizon
:: but the satellite in geosynchronous orbit around the Earth puts a
:: stop to that notion as it looks in on a location passing through the
:: circle of illumination.

Just because we now have a satellite that tracks a position on the
earth as it passes between the two terminators (ie, "passing through the
circle of illumination", doesn't mean the velocity of passing between the
terminators matters. Because as the velocity changes with lattitude,
so does the size of the "circle of illumination" in exact proportion.
So it cannot possibly explain why the sun would cross the horizon (from
the earth's POV) at different rates at different lattitudes. If somebody
(like, say, origel) can't grok that, then they flunk 2000 year old greek
geometry, at the very least, and maybe 4000 year old egyptian surveying.

:: The Sun will still be visible to the satellite long after the

:: location on Earth has passed into darkness hence the circle of
:: illumination is a local affair extending only as far as the
:: atmosphere so that latitudinal speeds alone are responsible for
:: twilight lengths rather than trying to project cause to the distant
:: Sun and its position to the horizon.Again,this is a huge area of
:: study based on radiation and the nature of light.

As if origel knows anything about radiation and the nature of light.
But even ignoring that, that's the wonkidst bit of bafflegab I've
seen lately. "local affair"? When the *source* of that light is
the sun which is in no way "local" to the atmosphere.

Ah, but then, origel will spin any line of drivel, as long as it
supports his dogma, no matter what it conflicts with, from Kepler
and Galileo to basic geometry. (See, the relevant "nature of light"
here is that it goes in straight lines (except for minor issues
of refraction, which issues aren't significant in this case).)

:: The person on the Martian crater sees the moon orbit the Earth like

:: we see all natural satellites circle their parent planets.The moon is
:: far too close to the Earth to make sense of its phases in orbital

:: terms in the same way the phases of Venus register that planet's

:: orbital circuit around the Sun

That's wrong. No matter how distant the observer, if they can see
phases at all, they can see that they are a relationship of the moon's
relative angular position wrt the sun.

: The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help <inv...@invalid.invalid>
: "Phases" isn't the issue.

True.

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-21, oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The person on the Martian crater sees the moon orbit the Earth like we
> see all natural satellites circle their parent planets.The moon is far
> too close to the Earth to make sense of its phases in orbital terms in
> the same way the phases of Venus register that planet's orbital
> circuit around the Sun but hopefully the images are enjoyable enough
> to draw attention to orbital circuits and the single day/night phase
> experienced on the moon solely due to its orbital motion -

...scary. So oriel36 doesn't actually know what causes phases then - the
viewing of an object illuminated by the Sun from different directions at
different points in its and your orbits. Rotation of the thing being
illuminated doesn't change what phase it shows. And the Earth doesn't
illuminate the Moon very well at all, so claiming that the Moon would get
phases from orbiting the Earth in the same way that Venus does from orbiting
the Sun? Is just silly. Not to mention the differences in viewing the Moon
(illuminated by Sun and Earth) from the _Earth_ vs viewing Venus (illuminated
from the Sun, NOT orbiting Earth) from the Earth.

And no, the day and night the Moon experiences each month? Is not because it's
going around the Earth and somehow getting spatially twisted by doing so. It's
because it's ROTATING once, with respect to the Sun, in that time. Turning.
Spinning. If it did not rotate with respect to the Sun, then the Sun would not
rise nor set as seem from any given point on its surface. And its day/night
cycle is a DIFFERENT LENGTH than its rotational period with respect to the
stars, because it's moving through about a twelfth of Earth's orbit each month,
or around 30 degrees, which makes the Sun be in a different place when the
Moon is trying to rotate back to where the Sun's in the same place in the sky;
once the Sun does get back there, different stars are hidden behind it.

Also, note that we see a full Moon fairly often, but never get to see a
completely full Venus. Why? Not because the Moon is closer to us. But because
Venus +goes behind the Sun+ from where we're looking before it gets completely
full. I don't know what mental picture of Solar System dynamics Gerald has in
his head, but it's clear it's not that close to the standard one.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Galileo uses a different argument using a line drawn from the moon to

: the Earth rather than Kepler's slingshot argument against a spinning
: moon

Except of course that neither of those is "against a spinning moon".
They are equally compatible with a moon with synchronized spin. Indeed,
that the moon spins is compatible with much more of what's observed
about the moon (that its keplerian orbit and spin are synchronized,
not causally connected). No matter how frantically origel frame-jumps
to deny it.

After all, Galielo invented relativity (as part of his point that
the earth can both spin and orbit), and is explicitly aware that only
uniform, inertial motion *is* relative. So Galielo already dismissed
the notion that one should refer things to spinning reference systems,
and conflate circular movement and spin, as origel routinely does.

I'm surprised (not really, but if I expected origel to be consistent,
then I'd probably be surprised) that origel hasn't already rejected
Galileo as a precursor of the archfiend Newton.

[Wayne Throop]

:: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
:: The person on the Martian crater sees the moon orbit the Earth like

:: we see all natural satellites circle their parent planets.The moon is
:: far too close to the Earth to make sense of its phases in orbital
:: terms in the same way the phases of Venus register that planet's
:: orbital circuit around the Sun but hopefully the images are enjoyable
:: enough to draw attention to orbital circuits and the single day/night
:: phase experienced on the moon solely due to its orbital motion -

: David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net>

: The person on the Martian crater sees the moon orbit the Earth like we
: see all natural satellites circle their parent planets.The moon is far
: too close to the Earth to make sense of its phases in orbital terms in
: the same way the phases of Venus register that planet's orbital
: circuit around the Sun but hopefully the images are enjoyable enough
: to draw attention to orbital circuits and the single day/night phase
: experienced on the moon solely due to its orbital motion -

Ah. I had missed that ... um... what's the word ... well, we can
go with the mild "absurd," notion that the moon's phases are to the
earth as venus' phases are the sun. Good catch; a most amusing
absurdity indeed.

: And no, the day and night the Moon experiences each month? Is not

: because it's going around the Earth and somehow getting spatially
: twisted by doing so. It's because it's ROTATING once, with respect to
: the Sun, in that time. Turning. Spinning.

Of course the problem is, origel doesn't know what "with respect to"
means. Because his dogma rules anathama using any reference frame
but the One True Reference Frame For This Situation Which Changes
At A Whim, Sometimes In Mid Breath.

But the astute origel-watcher can see that he uses frames that rotate
wrt each other. But "spin" is only wrt the rotating frame where the
line between satellite and primary is not spinning. And the choice of
that frame is Canon, and using any other is Blasphemy Against Dogma.
He doesn't care (nor realize) that Galileo's Carma ran over his Dogma
and squished it flat, centuries ago.

[oriel36]

What a joy to behold !,in order to save a spinning moon ideology you
find yourselves having to destroy Sir Isaac's 'Universal law of
gravitation',the laws of physics,Newton laws,Kepler's laws or whatever
other self-important name you give these things.Kepler did not write
laws and when he conjectured the cause of planetary orbital
motion,something which Galileo continued,he based it on the fact that
the moon doesn't rotate -

"The Sun and the moon rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this
motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the
six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case
of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of
its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJAS0eQ64C&pg=PA78&lpg


So you not only have lost your spinning moon,you also have demolished
by your own reasoning the idea of Kepler's 'laws of planetary motion'
which were never laws to begin with .In chess they call this
'checkmate' but in reality I have never seen such cruelty visited on
the works of the great astronomers and especially Copernicus and the
method he used to account for the daily and orbital motions of the
Earth.

The scam is that creating a fuss over early 20th century relativity is
allowed,it doesn't matter if you propose or oppose the silly thing and
indeed challenging Newton is partly allowed so long as nobody ever
goes into any kind of detail but the real scam is that empiricists
themselves do not want to know what Sir Isaac was actually doing and
that is why it is so difficult to deal with,at least up until now.

[The Starmaker]

you don't seem to unnderstand...
i'll make it simple..
there are two types of flavors of ice cream
on earth...
natural flavors and artificial flavors.

there are two types of satilites
natural satilites and artificial satilites.

both satilites come from earth
just as the ice cream flavors.

The Moon is a natural satilite that comes from Earth.

Television satilites are artificial satilites that
come from earth.

If the moon did not come from the earth, then where did the moon come from, that
it all of a sudden out of nowhere it decides to be a tide breaker.


The moon is a bee that draws honey from a tree.


http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abcd.jpg



The Starmaker


I already won The Nobel Prize!

[Quadibloc]

On May 21, 1:25 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> :: The person on the Martian crater sees the moon orbit the Earth like
> :: we see all natural satellites circle their parent planets.The moon is
> :: far too close to the Earth to make sense of its phases in orbital
> :: terms in the same way the phases of Venus register that planet's
> :: orbital circuit around the Sun but hopefully the images are enjoyable
> :: enough to draw attention to orbital circuits and the single day/night
> :: phase experienced on the moon solely due to its orbital motion -
>

> : David DeLaney <daviddela...@earthlink.net>

> : The person on the Martian crater sees the moon orbit the Earth like we
> : see all natural satellites circle their parent planets.The moon is far
> : too close to the Earth to make sense of its phases in orbital terms in
> : the same way the phases of Venus register that planet's orbital
> : circuit around the Sun but hopefully the images are enjoyable enough
> : to draw attention to orbital circuits and the single day/night phase
> : experienced on the moon solely due to its orbital motion -
>
> Ah.  I had missed that ... um... what's the word ... well, we can
> go with the mild "absurd," notion that the moon's phases are to the
> earth as venus' phases are the sun.  Good catch; a most amusing
> absurdity indeed.

No, Oriel said:

> :: The moon is

> :: far too close to the Earth to make sense of its phases in orbital
> :: terms in the same way the phases of Venus register that planet's
> :: orbital circuit around the Sun

Thus, he seems to be saying that because the Moon is so close to the
Earth, its phases aren't caused by its orbit the way those of Venus
are caused by its orbit.

Now, it is certainly true that its phases _are_ caused by its orbit;
the Moon in a given position would be full, in first quarter, new, a
crescent, or gibbous, whether it rotated every five hours or it did
not rotate.

Phases are defined by the fact that the half of an object that faces a
source of light is illuminated, and so the phase is determined from
the angle from which you are viewing the object.

If you are an astronomer on Mars, to you the Moon's phase would be the
same as the Earth's phase because it is so close to the Earth, and
thus the Earth's orbit is the cause of both (with the Moon's orbit the
cause of the minor differences).

If you are an astronomer on Earth, the Moon's orbit around the Earth
causes the Moon's phases, and the orbits of Venus and Mars around the
Sun cause their phases... but because Venus is an inferior planet,
Mars is a superior planet, and the Moon is a satellite of the Earth,
the way in which all these orbits cause phases is different.

Thus, Oriel, who is not saying much clearly at all here, has plenty of
wiggle room in which he can avoid the charge of having said anything
which clearly contradicts observation.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On May 21, 5:08 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "The Sun and the moon rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this
> motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the
> six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case
> of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of
> its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

Oh, the *footnote* contained a quotation from Kepler, and it was
_that_ which I was supposed to read.

Well, this means Kepler was mistaken about something. Why should that
be so surprising? After all, he lived hundreds of years ago; today, we
have more accurate clocks, we have bigger telescopes (in fact, Kepler
had to make do without any telescopes at all, unlike Galileo), we have
photographic film to record images. So it is easier for us to keep
track of the Moon's libration than it would have been for him.

John Savard

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: What a joy to behold !,in order to save a spinning moon ideology you

: find yourselves having to destroy Sir Isaac's 'Universal law of
: gravitation',the laws of physics,Newton laws,Kepler's laws or whatever
: other self-important name you give these things.Kepler did not write
: laws and when he conjectured the cause of planetary orbital
: motion,something which Galileo continued,he based it on the fact that
: the moon doesn't rotate -

First of all, it's ridiculous to claim that noticing that the moon
spins in all coordinate systems that spin wrt it is hardly going
to tear down universal laws of gravitation, or any other laws of physics,
but second of all, Kepler didn't write laws?

So wots all this then?

Johannes Kepler published his first two laws in 1609, having found
them by analyzing the astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe.[2]
Kepler discovered his third law many years later, and it was
published in 1619.[2]

1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at
one of the two foci.
2. A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas
during equal intervals of time.[1]
3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional
to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

[2] Kepler "for the first time revealed" a "real approximation to
the true kinematical relations [motions] of the solar system", see
page 1 in H C Plummer (1918), An introductory treatise on dynamical
astronomy, Cambridge, 1918.

: when he conjectured the cause of planetary orbital motion,

He didn't really make any coherent conjectures of the causes.
He mostly described the kinematics only.

: http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJAS0eQ64C&pg=PA78&lpg

: So you not only have lost your spinning moon,you also have demolished
: by your own reasoning the idea of Kepler's 'laws of planetary motion'
: which were never laws to begin with

Sorry, but "we know it revolves around the earth just as if it were
attached by a cord" is neither a descriptio of an actual cause,
nor a denial of spin, since of course an object on the end of a cord
is spinning. He's *describing the motion* (ie, the "kinematics only",
no causes), he's not cooking up a precuror to origel's True Believer's
Big Book of Astronomical Dogma.

[Wayne Throop]

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: Oriel said:

:::: oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
:::: The moon is far too close to the Earth to make sense of its phases

:::: in orbital terms in the same way the phases of Venus register that
:::: planet's orbital circuit around the Sun

Seems pretty clear to me. The implication being that the phases of
the moon *are* to be understood wrt the earth, not the sun, but mars
is too far away to see this. Apparently, martians don't have Newtonian
telescopes, and something limits the size of their refracting telescopes
worse than on earth.

Origel doesn't think the moon *makes* any orbital circuits around the sun,
near as I can tell. Certainly he was quite derisive when folks pointed
out that the sun/earth/moon relationship more like the co-orbiting of two
planets each perturbing the other, rather than the earth orbiting the sun
and the moon orbiting earth. And, of course, ignored the implications
this fact has for the moon's spin.

So OK, let's say he meant something different. Let's say he didn't
intend to diss the martians' telescopic technology. What *was* his point
behind all the incoherent bafflegab? Well, sure, his point is always
"the moon does not spin, neither, nyeah, you newtonian cultists you",
but that's always ultimately supported by his insistance on using the One
True Frame For This Occasion, not by observation from multiple viewpoints
and multiple frames. Since of course, if he admits those things into
the discussion, then it becomes clear to anybody but him that the moon
spins wrt a plethora of frames and his only response is that "they'll
see that it's all due to the moon's orbital motion", which boils down to,
"You Aren't Using The One True Frame For This Occasion".

So what's the point of invoking the martian astronomers, when he then
immediately says "their viewpoint doesn't count, they have to refer
everything to the earth-centered-moon-facing-non-inertial-frame and drink
the origelian koolaid, they must they MUST". (Well, not *everything* of
course. the moon's orbit must presumably be refered to the earth-centered
sun-facing non-inertial frame. It's apparently important to him that
all the frames be non-inertial, and that many many many of them be
used to patch up his dogma.)

: If you are an astronomer on Earth, the Moon's orbit around the Earth

: causes the Moon's phases, and the orbits of Venus and Mars around the
: Sun cause their phases... but because Venus is an inferior planet,
: Mars is a superior planet, and the Moon is a satellite of the Earth,
: the way in which all these orbits cause phases is different.

Well duh. The moon, to the martians, acts like an inferior plane
phasewise, sure. But none of that has anything to do with whether
the moon spins.

It's clearly a matter of terminology; but of course the terminology that's
more useful and understandable Must Not Be Used, because the terms aren't
Defined With The One True Frame For This Circumstance. And you gotta
do like the book *says*! You can't contradict the TBBGoAD in even the
smallest respect, or you'll be branded a cultist of the archfiend Newton,
even if you are merely describing kinematics, and not based on anything
newtonian at all.

[Wayne Throop]

:: "The Sun and the moon rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this
:: motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the
:: six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the
:: case of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the
:: axis of its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: Oh, the *footnote* contained a quotation from Kepler, and it was

: _that_ which I was supposed to read.

Was that supposed to be Kepler outlining the "cause" of orbits being
eliptical and planetary motions following the equal areas rule? This
must be a meaning of the word "cause" with very lowered expectations.
Since it's just giving a purpose, but no link getween that alleged
purpose and the shape of the orbits or how the velocity changes that
result from this "purpose" follow the equal areas rule.

: Well, this means Kepler was mistaken about something.

For one thing, just in terms of motions, the moon doesn't have a pure
keplerian orbital shape, because of solar tides across the earth-moon system.
In fact, if you get down to the details and consider many bodies together,
it becomes clear Kepler's rules were only approximate.


And by the way, if origel isn't a troll, why does he keep putting back
the stary one's trademark trolling crostposting groups?

[1,979 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 03:26:17 -0700 (PDT), oriel36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korolev_(lunar_crater)

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-22, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
> and drink
> the origelian koolaid,

...worst flavor EVAR.

Dave, no WONDER they commit suicide

PS: ... too soon?

[alie...@gmail.com]

On May 21, 8:54 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 11:52 am, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 03:26:17 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > | On May 21, 11:21 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > |> On May 20, 9:55 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > |>
> > |>
> > |> > The person on the Martian crater
> > |>
> > |>   Ah, I see the source of confusion here; I was unclear. Korolev is
> > |> not a crater on Mars, it is a crater on Earth's moon, on the side that
> > |> does not (in this geological epoch) face Earth.
> > |>
> > |
> > |>   Mark L. Fergerson
> > |
> > |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korolev_(Martian_crater)
> > |
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korolev_(lunar_crater)
>
> > --
> > Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC.    http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
> >   Asking for technical help in newsgroups?  Read this first:
> >      http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
>
> Fair enough.
>
> http://archive.org/stream/popularinquiryin00gumprich#page/4/mode/2up
>
> Galileo uses a different argument

I didn't ask Galileo anything, I asked you why your definition of
"rotation/spin" and how to tell if the body you're standing on is
doing it does not apply to an observer standing in Korolev crater on
the moon.

You have yet to respond to that question.


Mark L. Fergerson

[oriel36]

Tell me that fairytale where Kepler comes up with planetary laws and
then Sir Isaac explains them -

"The Sun and the moon rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this
motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the
six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case
of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of
its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

So much for the 'theory of gravitation' ! and the fable that led to
its promotion for the last two and a half centuries.That is the thing
about a cult mind,it will cut itself to pieces to maintain the
conclusion of a spinning moon so now you know what Kepler actually
thought was the cause of orbital motions and this was continued by
Galileo in the 'Starry Messenger'.

A person would normally be shocked to see the whole story blown in a
few sentences where Kepler uses a non spinning moon to suggest that
rotation imparts motions to the planets using the Sun's rotation and
imparts orbital motion to the moon due to the Earth's rotation as in
some ways he has a point as Venus and Mercury have only residual
rotation rates but really does not mesh with contemporary data.

Empiricists are being given a second chance,not be so greedy this time
around and to wait for a genuine astronomer to point out physical
considerations before they send humanity chasing rainbows for the last
two centuries.

[Wayne Throop]

:: I asked you why your definition of "rotation/spin" and how to tell if

:: the body you're standing on is doing it does not apply to an observer
:: standing in Korolev crater on the moon.
:: You have yet to respond to that question.

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Tell me that fairytale where Kepler comes up with planetary laws and

: then Sir Isaac explains them -
:

: "The Sun and the moon rotate on their own axes [yada yada yada]

I see origel is ducking the question again.
That's pretty good evidence that he doesn't *have* an answer,
and doesn't *know* any reason it doesn't apply.

And by the way, do you suppose origel is claiming that Kepler never said
that planetary orbits are elipses with the sun at one focus, nor that
planets sweep out equal areas in equal times? I suppose that's just
several more facts that origel has to ignore to make his dogma
work for him.

: So much for the 'theory of gravitation' !

Just because origel has really *awful* reading comprehension
does nothing to invalidate the theory of gravitation in even the
teeniest tiniest detail.

[alie...@gmail.com]

Again, I have asked no questions of either Kepler or Newton.

> So much for the 'theory of gravitation' ! and the fable that led to
> its promotion for the last two and a half centuries.That is the thing
> about a cult mind,it will cut itself to pieces to maintain the
> conclusion of a spinning moon so now you know what Kepler actually
> thought was the cause of orbital motions and this was continued by
> Galileo in the 'Starry Messenger'.

Again, since you deny "the theory of gravitation" (there are
several), perhaps you could explain what you think holds the planets
and moons in their courses.

> A person would normally be shocked to see the whole story blown in a
> few sentences where Kepler uses a non spinning moon to suggest that
> rotation imparts motions to the planets using the Sun's rotation and
> imparts orbital motion to the moon due to the Earth's rotation as in
> some ways he has a point as Venus and Mercury have only residual
> rotation rates but really does not mesh with contemporary data.
>
> Empiricists are being given a second chance,not be so greedy this time
> around and to wait for a genuine astronomer to point out physical
> considerations before they send humanity chasing rainbows for the last
> two centuries.

None of that addresses *your* definition and why you think it can
not apply to an observer in Korolev crater on the moon.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Quadibloc]

On May 22, 12:56 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:

>   Again, since you deny "the theory of gravitation" (there are
> several), perhaps you could explain what you think holds the planets
> and moons in their courses.

The whole point of Oriel's posts is to reform astronomy so that it
relies on people's intuitive and interpretive facilities, and gets
away from empiricism!

So, while we admire the beauty of the Creation, and God's sense of
harmony and proportion in causing the planets to orbit according to
Kepler's laws, the idea is not to replace Newton's wrongheaded notions
of "gravity" and "angular momentum" with another version of the same
sort of nonsense, but instead to just appreciate that God makes the
planets orbit this way because He thinks it looks pretty!

In other words, you're asking Oriel a question which has no meaning in
his world view.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On May 22, 4:22 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Empiricists are being given a second chance,not be so greedy this time
> around and to wait for a genuine astronomer to point out physical
> considerations before they send humanity chasing rainbows for the last
> two centuries.

I presume you mean "chasing rainbows for the next two centuries the
way they did for the last two centuries".

John Savard

[Wayne Throop]

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: The whole point of Oriel's posts is to reform astronomy so that it

: relies on people's intuitive and interpretive facilities, and gets
: away from empiricism!
:
: So, while we admire the beauty of the Creation, and God's sense of
: harmony and proportion in causing the planets to orbit according to
: Kepler's laws

Um. Origel's been saying Kepler made no laws. Pretty adamant
and condescending about it too, he was. So I think you're missing
something there.

: In other words, you're asking Oriel a question which has no meaning in
: his world view.

And yet he quotes Kepler saying it's the spinning of the primary that
"causes" the secondary to orbit. Of course... that's no indication of why
the planetary motions follow kepler's laws (which he denies exist),
so it's hard to say *what* he has in mind. If mind he has and anything
to occupy it.


Thou Who might be our Father Who perhaps may be in Heaven,
Hallowed by Thy name, if a name Thou hast and any desire
to see it hallowed...

--- Madrak, in Creatures of Light and Darkness
(he gets interruipted, so the rest is not provided, alas)

[Wayne Throop]

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: The whole point of Oriel's posts is to reform astronomy so that it

: relies on people's intuitive and interpretive facilities, and gets
: away from empiricism!

Not "people's intuitive and interpretive facilities".
Just his. In fact, intuition and interpretation based on any
viewpoint than the one he dictates is Forbidden.

[oriel36]

An observer on Earth can see the fraud for what it is - hijacking the
works of Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo and pretending that they
believed in such ridiculous notions as a spinning moon which happens
to be the antithesis of astronomical thought and methods.

You have these guys rushing into the thread with all guns blazing and
then leaving with a whimper when faced with the actual words of the
great astronomers and as an empirical drone,one no better than the
other,you are willing to undermine Sir Isaac's 'theory of gravity' to
support your spinning moon.

Do you really think you can avoid Kepler's use of a non spinning moon
to support his assertion,one held by Galileo also,that the rotation of
celestial objects is responsible for orbital motion -

"The Sun and the moon rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this
motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the
six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case
of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of
its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

Only Nazi doctrine in the extreme comes close to the vicious strain of
empiricism that began with Newton and I have to reach for a fictional
analysis of this type of mindset to account for the dubious ability to
screen out observations and the original texts of the great
astronomers,even with their conceptual flaws -

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies
while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become
inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it
back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the
existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of
the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary.
Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise
doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering
with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge;
and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the
truth" Orwell,Nineteen Eighty Four (based on Nazi doctrine).


It is convenient for you to crow about Kepler yet when Kepler
unequivocally declares that the moon doesn't spin and presents his own
views on why there are planetary and lunar orbits based on that
principle your cult filters out what he says -that is why this cult is
dangerous and destructive and exceptionally dull and unproductive.

The 'information technology' guys once touted individuality but turn
out to display the worst conformity of the lot -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwT6mgXsZvU

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: You have these guys rushing into the thread with all guns blazing and

: then leaving with a whimper when faced with the actual words of the
: great astronomers

Which don't mean what origel claims they mean.

: the antithesis of astronomical thought and methods.

It's a very very good thing that origel isn't in charge of
forcing astronomers to use only his prescribed methods, instead
of thinking for themselves.

[alie...@gmail.com]

I have said nothing about Galileo, Newton, or Kepler.

I am trying to get *you* to tell me why *your* definition of
rotation/spin does not work for an observer in Korolev crater on the
moon.

Will you please stop introducing extraneous material from others and
explain in terms of *your* definition?


Mark L. Fergerson

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-22, oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> None of that addresses *your* definition and why you think it can
>> not apply to an observer in Korolev crater on the moon.
>>
>> Mark L. Fergerson
>
> An observer on Earth can see the fraud for what it is

Odd, then, that every observer on Earth EXCEPT YOU knows how it works and
knows that what you're calling a 'fraud' is no such thing. Perhaps you need
to start searching for a different world to observe from?

The Moon spins, Charlie Brown. Approximately once per lunar month. Nothing
about going in a mostly-circular orbit makes it twist to keep facing the
same way in the orbit, any more than moving in a square shape would cause it
to twist violently each time it went around a corner.

(Odd how Gerald thinks Newton should be reviled and all his works spat upon,
but he'll quote him to support his views. Odd also that he doesn't have any
knowledge of the field any LATER than Galileo and Kepler and Newton,
apparently, or any seeming education in astronomy, physics, kinematics, or
celestial mechanics. Intuition, his, is supposed to be a better guide to the
universe than the whole history of astronomy built upon itself. Perhaps he's
watched too much My Little Pony?)

Dave

[John Gogo]

On May 22, 9:39 pm, David DeLaney <daviddela...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE        HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/- net.legends    FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

The Moon spins.

According to which reference frame?

Nothing
> about going in a mostly-circular orbit makes it twist to keep facing the
> same way in the orbit, any more than moving in a square shape would cause it
> to twist violently each time it went around a corner.

If the moon were square, you would never see at least one of its
corners.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2013-05-22 22:39:06 -0400, David DeLaney said:

> (Odd how Gerald thinks Newton should be reviled and all his works spat upon,
> but he'll quote him to support his views. Odd also that he doesn't have any
> knowledge of the field any LATER than Galileo and Kepler and Newton,
> apparently, or any seeming education in astronomy, physics, kinematics, or
> celestial mechanics. Intuition, his, is supposed to be a better guide to the
> universe than the whole history of astronomy built upon itself. Perhaps he's
> watched too much My Little Pony?)

Do you really think he could follow the plots on My Little Pony?

I suppose he might just watch it for the pretty pictures.




--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1466291532/

[oriel36]

You can't make sense of the major Western astronomical achievement
first brought to light by Copernicus based on the fact that as our
planet orbits the Sun faster than the outer planets,they temporarily
fall behind against the background stars as we overtake them just as
on a traffic roundabout a faster car in an inner circuit sees a slower
moving car in an outer circuit fall behind in view in their common
motion around the traffic island -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

It is neither the nerve nor the stupidity of empiricists that they
just don't get it as your cult tries to invoke an alternative view of
retrogrades using a hypothetical observer on the Sun - it is the
troubling indoctrination to follow Newton at all costs without even
knowing what he was attempting to do with his absolute/relative
time,space and motion.

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

That is quite a lucrative cult you got going there Fergerson and the
fact is that you cannot bear to look at Kepler's statement as it
addresses not so much the ridiculous idea of a spinning moon but
completely undermines the attempt of empiricists to drag him into
supporting the vicious strain of empiricism.

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:22:14 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:


| Tell me that fairytale where Kepler comes up with planetary laws and
| then Sir Isaac explains them -
|
| "The Sun and the moon rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this
| motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the
| six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case
| of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of
| its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

The word "purpose" here is a fallacy. Neither the planets nor the sun are
intelligent beings, and so cannot "do" anything with a "purpose".

Yes, the rotation of the sun is related to the orbiting of the planets,
in that they are both due to the angular momentum contained in the
original gas cloud that condensed to form the solar system. Since the
cloud was rotating (slowly) in one direction (call it clockwise), so is
the resulting solar system, including the star at the center. It's
called Conservation of Angular Momentum.


Also, I'm quite happy saying that Kepler is wrong in the statement you
quoted above, in most of the details he mentions, while also contending
he was right in his laws of planetary motion.

No human is infallible, nobody is 100% right all the time. Science
progresses by testing it's results over and over, discarding the
incorrect ones (that is, the ones that don't match measured reality, or
don't make useful predictions) but keeping and refining the useful
results and theories/explanations.

Even Newton was wrong in many things, his attempts at alchemy for a
start, but his useful results have been kept and expanded on.

| So much for the 'theory of gravitation' ! and the fable that led to
| its promotion for the last two and a half centuries.That is the thing

It would be nice at time if, when somebody proposed a crank idea, it
suddenly applied just to them. In this case oriel would just fly into
space and we would be done with him.

How does the denial of a "purpose" negate the theory of gravity?

If gravity does not exist, what holds the planets in orbit, and you down
to the ground?

| about a cult mind,it will cut itself to pieces to maintain the
| conclusion of a spinning moon so now you know what Kepler actually
| thought was the cause of orbital motions and this was continued by
| Galileo in the 'Starry Messenger'.

What Kepler thought is irrelevant, only what he proved by his
observations and deductions is important.

| A person would normally be shocked to see the whole story blown in a
| few sentences where Kepler uses a non spinning moon to suggest that
| rotation imparts motions to the planets using the Sun's rotation and
| imparts orbital motion to the moon due to the Earth's rotation as in
| some ways he has a point as Venus and Mercury have only residual
| rotation rates but really does not mesh with contemporary data.

Anyone who thinks Kepler's mistaken ideas on "Purpose" and the source of
planetary orbital motion somehow even slightly damages the Theory of
Gravity has zero understanding of science.

| Empiricists are being given a second chance,not be so greedy this time
| around and to wait for a genuine astronomer to point out physical
| considerations before they send humanity chasing rainbows for the last
| two centuries.

Not just chasing rainbows, but catching them, understanding them, and
using them for the betterment of mankind.

[The Starmaker]

What holds a plane on it's course? Autopilot.
What holds the planets and moons on it's course? Autopilot!

Now, who switched on the autopilot on the earth?

[The Starmaker]

Here's how it works:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tO6gC5x822Y/ULYqfc8iPaI/AAAAAAAAAEY/ANYGnbNtTAI/s1600/other-natute-green-01-357.jpg

the leaves
holds
drops of water

the moon
twice a day
pulls

the
drops of water
from the leaves

to the ground

to form
the river
http://www.deepriverministries.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/River-Deep-Forest-Wp-TW2010.png

the rivers
flows
into
a ocean.

http://www.shannontech.com/ParkVision/Haleakala/Hal-24.jpg


They don't teach this stuff in skool, don't they?
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abcd.jpg


The Starmaker

[oriel36]

On May 23, 7:04 am, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:22:14 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> | Tell me that fairytale where Kepler comes up with planetary laws and
> | then Sir Isaac explains them -
> |
> | "The Sun and the moon rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this
> | motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the
> | six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case
> | of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of
> | its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler
>
> The word "purpose" here is a fallacy. Neither the planets nor the sun are
> intelligent beings, and so cannot "do" anything with a "purpose".
>
> Yes, the rotation of the sun is related to the orbiting of the planets,
> in that they are both due to the angular momentum contained in the
> original gas cloud that condensed to form the solar system. Since the
> cloud was rotating (slowly) in one direction (call it clockwise), so is
> the resulting solar system, including the star at the center. It's
> called Conservation of Angular Momentum.
>

Naughty,naughty,quoting voodoo after the fact is crass,the basis of
the voodoo was the assumption that Newton built on Kepler's methods
and insights when clearly,at least to a competent astronomer,Newton
tries to apply double modeling to a correlation Kepler made between
orbital periods and distance from the Sun -

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler

Of course empiricists exploit the unfamiliarity of this statement even
though I posted an expanded version a few days ago which is easy
enough to grasp and nothing like the pure junk of Sir Isaac which is
tied into his corrupt resolution of retrogrades -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton

> Also, I'm quite happy saying that Kepler is wrong in the statement you
> quoted above, in most of the details he mentions, while also contending
> he was right in his laws of planetary motion.
>

Kepler never wrote laws,that idea was inserted by Voltaire later on
and the bunch of Newton's followers who hadn't a clue what he was
talking about when it came to his absolute/relative time,space and
motion - people just like you who live with a fairytale at the expense
of astronomy.

I am not attacking Sir Isaac,I am point out that as long as this mess
prevails there can be no productive work in the enormous area where
astronomy and natural terrestrial sciences mesh and especially for
empiricists themselves,not the self-serving kind but those who
genuinely wish to consider why the planets orbit the way they do with
21st century imaging.

> No human is infallible, nobody is 100% right all the time. Science
> progresses by testing it's results over and over, discarding the
> incorrect ones (that is, the ones that don't match measured reality, or
> don't make useful predictions) but keeping and refining the useful
> results and theories/explanations.

What you have is an exercise in Chinese whispers passed off as trial
and error,a type of groping of the inexperienced trying to
continuously cobble a story together.It is a scam,no more and no less
and even when I present a stable proposal such as a common rotational
mechanism for plate tectonics and the spherical deviation of the
planet,I have to watch these academics screw it up by chanting voodoo
at the idea that has been out there for over a decade.

>
> Even Newton was wrong in many things, his attempts at alchemy for a
> start, but his useful results have been kept and expanded on.
>

You are hero worshiping and I do not need that type of drone,in the
era of powerful imaging and graphics, Newton's agenda disintegrates
and especially his clockwork solar system designed around a rotating
celestial sphere which is implicit in the statement earlier on in the
post.Consider yourselves privileged to witness the beginning of a
revolution that will occupy many,many people for years and free of the
contortions which almost destroyed astronomy through misusing watches
in applying false references to planetary motions.

The rest of your post I will deal with later.

[alie...@gmail.com]

Sorry, I left Copernicus out of the list of people I had not
mentioned.

> That is quite a lucrative cult you got going there Fergerson

No, I make not a single penny ever out of any of this. I am
interested solely in finding out why YOU claim that YOUR definition of
"rotation/spin" and how to determine if the body one is standing on is
doing that does not apply to an observer standing in Korolev crater on
the moon.

Now, without mentioning any dead person at all, astronomical
authority or not, please answer my question IN YOUR OWN WORDS.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Quadibloc]

On May 22, 10:50 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You can't make sense of the major Western astronomical achievement
> first brought to light by Copernicus based on the fact that as our
> planet orbits the Sun faster than the outer planets,they temporarily
> fall behind against the background stars as we overtake them just as
> on a traffic roundabout a faster car in an inner circuit sees a slower
> moving car in an outer circuit fall behind in view in their common
> motion around the traffic island -

if you _dare_ to call attention to the fact that, because the cars
have a common motion around the traffic island, none of them appear to
be moving backward to an imaginary observer standing in the center of
the traffic island.

It still evades me just what you're reading into what Newton said
here; you are making very little sense.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On May 23, 1:42 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the  assumption that Newton built on Kepler's methods
> and insights when clearly,at least to a competent astronomer,Newton
> tries to apply double modeling to a correlation Kepler made between
> orbital periods and distance from the Sun -
>
> "The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
> is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
> orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
> proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler
>
> Of course empiricists exploit the unfamiliarity of this statement even
> though I posted an expanded version a few days ago which is easy
> enough to grasp and nothing like the pure junk of Sir Isaac which is
> tied into his corrupt resolution of retrogrades -
>
> "That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
> primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
> earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
> distances from the sun." Newton

Both quotes are saying exactly the same thing:

(orbital period)^(1.5) = K * (semi-major axis of orbit)

and thus why when Kepler says it's wonderful, but when Newton says it,
it's so awful, is mysterious to the naive reader. Perhaps it's because
Newton had the effrontery to mention the fixed stars?

John Savard

[oriel36]

If you fail to appreciate the central theme of Western astronomy which
uses the orbital motion of the Earth to account for apparent
retrogrades while your own ideology based on a hypothetical observer
on the Sun is not supported by astronomical tradition then you are
also failing to appreciate any other observation which does not
involve a hypothetical observer or conclusion.

The so-called 'inverse square law' superimposed on Kepler's
correlation between orbital periods and distance from the Sun applied
to planetary trajectories is a gross misuse of not only his conclusion
but the 'periodic times' argument which is central to what is
effectively a proportional conclusion based on two orbits -

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler

The simple fact is that none of you comprehend the maneuvering Newton
was trying to engage in to get his agenda to work hence all the voodoo
is meaningless,as Kepler uses a non spinning moon to propose why
planets orbit the Sun or the moon orbits the Earth.That is a great
shame as you are among the first individuals to see the whole
situation unfold using modern technology, contemporary imaging and the
original words of the great astronomers. It may be laziness,it may be
indoctrination or even just amusement but what is happening is that
the veneer of the early 20th century concept is stripped away and the
contentions move on to a proper stage where the hocus pocus of Sir
Isaac meets 21st century imaging supported by the texts of
Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.

>   Now, without mentioning any dead person at all, astronomical
> authority or not, please answer my question IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson

Their works are alive as their memory is through those works hence we
are seeing the clash between pride and integrity against doctrinal
obfuscation.In empirical circles these threads normally die at this
stage by virtue that personal attacks take over but fair enough to a
few people here that has not happened with this thread and God knows
the amount of topics and the quality of material involved that are
being discussed to move this topic forward is incredible by any
standards.

We all possess a common pool of information,I have just made that pool
so much bigger by grafting in technical material from the past and new
material that has yet to be dealt with.Enjoy the ride guys, genuine
astronomy is back on the agenda.

[oriel36]

> >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/...

>
> > The Starmaker
>
> > I already won The Nobel Prize!
>

> Here's how it works:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tO6gC5x822Y/ULYqfc8iPaI/AAAAAAAAAEY/ANYGnbN...

>
> the leaves
> holds
> drops of water
>
> the moon
> twice a day
> pulls
>
> the
> drops of water
> from the leaves
>
> to the ground
>
> to form

> the riverhttp://www.deepriverministries.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/River-D...

>
> the rivers
> flows
> into
> a ocean.
>
> http://www.shannontech.com/ParkVision/Haleakala/Hal-24.jpg
>

> They don't teach this stuff in skool, don't they?http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/...
>
> The Starmaker

Ah Mr Starmaker,how I love those streams after a summer storm and one
of the best insights I had was watching a stream erode a sandbank on
its way out to the sea -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrbXPKz-Zw&feature=related

All rotating celestial objects with fluid compositions display
differential rotation or an uneven rotational gradient between
equatorial and polar latitudes and applying the same observation to
the Earth's rotating interior causes the Earth to deviate from a
perfect sphere and generate crust off the Mid Atlantic Ridge -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrbXPKz-Zw&feature=related

Before Newton and his followers got greedy,you could scale up
analogies to natural terrestrial sciences like the old empiricists
once did and even the great astronomers who considered why we have
tides and this is the proper use of analogies rather than trying to
impose observations as direct causes.

I like your playful cause and effect but alas,there is an intense
satisfaction working on the real material and I leave you and salute
you in your funny proposal and in your talented presentation of it.

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-23, John Gogo <jfgo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 9:39 pm, David DeLaney <daviddela...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> The Moon spins, Charlie Brown. Approximately once per lunar month. Nothing
>> about going in a mostly-circular orbit makes it twist to keep facing the
>> same way in the orbit, any more than moving in a square shape would cause it
>> to twist violently each time it went around a corner.
>

> The Moon spins.
>
> According to which reference frame?

Any inertial one.

>> Nothing
>> about going in a mostly-circular orbit makes it twist to keep facing the
>> same way in the orbit, any more than moving in a square shape would cause it
>> to twist violently each time it went around a corner.
>
> If the moon were square, you would never see at least one of its corners.

No, you're thinking 'cubical'. For square we'd see it foursquare, for sure.

Dave, and its gravity field would be Interesting

--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>

http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-23, oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 10:06 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have said nothing about Galileo, Newton, or Kepler.
>>
>> I am trying to get *you* to tell me why *your* definition of
>> rotation/spin does not work for an observer in Korolev crater on the moon.
>>
>> Will you please stop introducing extraneous material from others and
>> explain in terms of *your* definition?

[many blathergraphs snipped]

It appears the answer is "No. I won't. Thank you. I'll be here all week,
very weak." Sorry.

Dave

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-23, Paul Colquhoun <newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> Yes, the rotation of the sun is related to the orbiting of the planets,
> in that they are both due to the angular momentum contained in the
> original gas cloud that condensed to form the solar system. Since the
> cloud was rotating (slowly) in one direction (call it clockwise), so is
> the resulting solar system, including the star at the center. It's
> called Conservation of Angular Momentum.

Though getting the angular momentum all out into the planets, nearly, is
somewhat perplexing.

> If gravity does not exist, what holds the planets in orbit, and you down
> to the ground?

Atomic Velcro.

Dave, it comes up, Charlie Brown, snow comes up!

PS:

> Not just chasing rainbows, but catching them, understanding them, and
> using them for the betterment of mankind.

Reviles Newton: check. Denigrates chasing rainbows: check. Obviously he was
traumatized by a prism at some point.