Sky & Telescope's Weekly Bulletin - August 13, 2010
Martin R. Howell
========================================
A Lunar Debate: Dry or Wet?
----------------------------------------
August 11, 2010 | It's been 40 years since Apollo astronauts returned with
dusty chunks of the Moon - samples that offer conflicting views of lunar
history.
Read More at:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/community/skyblog/newsblog/100429304.html
Observing
========================================
Tour August's Sky by Eye and Ear!
----------------------------------------
July 30, 2010 | Venus, Mars, and Saturn dance in the west after sunset,
while soon afterward giant Jupiter rises in the east - all that, and
Perseid meteors too! Host: S&T's Kelly Beatty. (6MB MP3 download: running
time: 6m 48s)
Read More at: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/home/99630999.html
An Evening Dance of Planets
----------------------------------------
August 6, 2010 | Step outside as evening twilight fades, and you'll find
brilliant Venus, along with fainter Mars and Saturn, shining low in the
west.
Read More at:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/community/skyblog/observingblog/100126474.html
Dark Nights for the Perseids
----------------------------------------
July 27, 2010 | Don't miss the year's best-known meteor shower, predicted
to peak on the night of August 12th.
Read More at:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/community/skyblog/observingblog/99304684.html
This Week's Sky at a Glance
========================================
This Week's Sky at a Glance
----------------------------------------
August 13, 2010 | The Perseid meteors are still active late tonight!
Meanwhile, the triangle of Venus, Saturn, and Mars continues to morph low
in evening twilight.
Read More at:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/ataglance/100619984.html
Community
========================================
Stellafane at its Best
----------------------------------------
August 13, 2010 | There's star parties and star parties - and then there's
Stellafane. Inaugurated in 1926, the Stellafane Convention is probably the
longest-running star party in North America, if not the world.
Read More at:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/community/skyblog/observingblog/100623169.html
Your Passport to the Stars!
========================================
Pocket Sky Atlas
----------------------------------------
Sky & Telescope's most popular atlas.
http://www.shopatsky.com/productdetail/59317.htm
A Year's Worth of Observing!
========================================
SkyWatch 2010
----------------------------------------
Everything You Need to See and Shoot the Night Sky!
http://www.shopatsky.com/products/U809.L6/Skywatch%202010.htm
Special Offer!
========================================
Mars Globe and DVD
----------------------------------------
Buy our best-selling Mars Globe and get the Mars DVD for FREE!
http://www.shopatsky.com/productdetail/MARSGLOBEDVD.htm
Shop at Sky
========================================
S&T Online Store
----------------------------------------
Visit ShopatSky.com to find the latest and greatest products for the
astronomer in you!
http://www.shopatsky.com/
Home: http://www.skyandtelescope.com
News: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news
Observing: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing
How To: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/howto
Resources: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources
Shop At Sky: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/shop
========================================
Copyright 2010 Sky & Telescope Media LLC
used by permission
--
Martin R. Howell
The Astro Post
www.theastropost.com
oriel36
<ilikestarsandyoudo...@universe.com> wrote:
> News
> ========================================
> A Lunar Debate: Dry or Wet?
> ----------------------------------------
What can be said of people who look out at the moon,see the same face
as it circuits the Earth and then conclude that it has a rotation and
its rotation period is the same as its orbital cycle !.
There is really no debate unless it is about intelligence as opposed
to sanity,the moon in its orbit of the Earth has no intrinsic rotation
otherwise we would observe it directly and its orbital trait in its
motion around the Earth in fascinating for other reasons.
The Earth has an intrinsic rotation that can be observed by all
external observers,the Earth orbital behavior can also be observed in
a limited way as the polar coordinates can be seen to pass through the
circle of illumination at the equinoxes and act like a beacon for the
orbital daylight/darkness cycle.These things are both observational
and geometric certainties yet we live in an era where people look out
at the moon,are asked to interpret the most obvious conclusion of all
yet opt for a false conclusion that the moon rotates and I hardly know
what to think.
Do people really want something as dismal as this ?>
Sam Wormley
> What can be said of people who look out at the moon,see the same face
> as it circuits the Earth and then conclude that it has a rotation and
> its rotation period is the same as its orbital cycle !.
One can take a couple of balls, paint a face on one to represent
the near side of the moon and see that the moon makes one rotation
about its axis as it make one orbit around the earth. It's pretty
obvious, Gerald!
Perhaps you don't understand what one rotation is--360° around with
respect to the "fixed" stars. Just like one orbit is with respect to
the "fixed" stars.
oriel36
> On 8/14/10 12:19 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > What can be said of people who look out at the moon,see the same face
> > as it circuits the Earth and then conclude that it has a rotation and
> > its rotation period is the same as its orbital cycle !.
>
> One can take a couple of balls, paint a face on one to represent
> the near side of the moon and see that the moon makes one rotation
> about its axis as it make one orbit around the earth. It's pretty
> obvious, Gerald!
It is just one of these things where you look out,see the moon orbit
the Earth and notice that there is no rotation,it does not admit
debate other than if you are seeing rotation where there is none,the
debate with be over sanity as opposed to common sense and
intelligence.
We can look at the Earth rotating from an external point of view as it
turns in its daily cycle,you can even see the moon orbit the Earth in
its lunar cycle -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s&p=0FC6358DF2D61754&playnext=1&index=48
If you can extract rotation of the moon as an independent motion even
though observations show its orbital trait keeps the same face to the
observer on Earth then you are in intellectual territory which I don't
think anybody really wants,regardless of how inconvenient it may be
for those who follow stellar circumpolar motion and its framework.
>
> Perhaps you don't understand what one rotation is--360° around with
> respect to the "fixed" stars. Just like one orbit is with respect to
> the "fixed" stars.
The debate as to whether the moon rotates or does not rotate may be
the one which finally gets readers to sit up and take notice for who
wants to be on the wrong side of that basic observation and
interpretation ?,then again I have seen a kind of obstinacy in all the
other basic astronomical correlations,observations and interpretation
which normally would be sorted out using graphics,time lapse footage
and other aids.
Again,do people really want to appear this dismal ?,I don't think so
but it remains to be seen and it will require a debate to sort it out
and while I am quite comfortable with observing an orbital trait of
the moon in its lunar cycle it may not be so for others.
Sam Wormley
> On Aug 14, 6:30 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/14/10 12:19 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>> What can be said of people who look out at the moon,see the same face
>>> as it circuits the Earth and then conclude that it has a rotation and
>>> its rotation period is the same as its orbital cycle !.
>>
>> One can take a couple of balls, paint a face on one to represent
>> the near side of the moon and see that the moon makes one rotation
>> about its axis as it make one orbit around the earth. It's pretty
>> obvious, Gerald!
>
> It is just one of these things where you look out,see the moon orbit
> the Earth and notice that there is no rotation,it does not admit
> debate other than if you are seeing rotation where there is none,the
> debate with be over sanity as opposed to common sense and
> intelligence.
>
> We can look at the Earth rotating from an external point of view as it
> turns in its daily cycle,you can even see the moon orbit the Earth in
> its lunar cycle -
>
Gerald you look at the earth... it keeps the same side facing you, yet
you accept that it is rotating. The same is true for the moon. It is
also rotating.
You have been wrong about the application of Kepler's 3rd law to the
Fomalhaut system, the 360° rotation of the earth, the cause of earth's
seasons, the duration of twilight calculations, and not the rotation
of the moon. That's not a very good track record.
If we were neighbors, I would encourage you to spend many an evening
with me measuring things in the nighttime sky. Daytime too, for that
matter. We could also get some broomsticks, balls and flashlights and
build educational models.
Painius
news:3955946f-8040-4256...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
Sam is helping you to "think" more clearly. As he says, when
your Earthly perspective tells you that the Earth does NOT go
around, you use science and logic to learn that the Earth does
indeed rotate on its axis.
When your Earthly perspective tells you that the Sun revolves
around the Earth, you then use science and logic to realize
that it's the other way around, just like Copernicus, et al., did.
When your Earthly perspective tells you that the Moon does
not rotate, then you use science and logic to learn that if the
Moon did not rotate, then your Earthly perspective would let
you see the entire surface of the Moon over its monthly cycle.
It is the very fact that, from the perspective of a lofty position
above Earth's North pole, the Moon *does* rotate on its axis,
that allows you to see only one face of the Moon from Earth.
Tidal locking is not rocket science, my friend, but it *is* very
much science, and the explanation you seek can be found by
studying tidal locking...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
HTH
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "How important it is for us to recognize and celebrate
our heroes and she-roes!" > Maya Angelou
P.P.S.: http://astronomy.painellsworth.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
oriel36
> When your Earthly perspective tells you that the Moon does
> not rotate, then you use science and logic to learn that if the
> Moon did not rotate, then your Earthly perspective would let
> you see the entire surface of the Moon over its monthly cycle.
>
Rotation intrinsic to a celestial object such as the Earth's daily
rotation causes the daylight/darkness cycle,the fact that the polar
coordinates turn with respect to the Sun in causing the orbital
daylight/darkness cycle of 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months
of darkness represents an orbital trait,the behavior of the Earth as
it orbits the Sun in point of fact, hence its orbital daylight/
darkness cycle is equivalent to its orbital motion around the Sun.In
short,don't mix an orbital trait for a rotational one so that if you
cannot observe a non-rotating moon and interpret it as such,then you
are in an intellectual state that is far from intelligence.
As far as I am concerned,the explanation is more Pixar than NASA as
all it needs is a few good graphics.
Painius
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
The Earth is not flat, Oriel36. If you are unwilling to learn,
then there is nothing anyone can do to help.
Personally, i think you sound like just another troller. So
fish away, silly goose, fish away.
Quadibloc
> What can be said of people who look out at the moon,see the same face
> as it circuits the Earth and then conclude that it has a rotation and
> its rotation period is the same as its orbital cycle !.
If that's all there was to it, you would be right.
But I explained about how the orbital movement is uneven, and that
there are librations which correspond to the difference between that
orbital motion and a *uniform* rotation. So for *technical* purposes,
it is appropriate to think in terms of the Moon having a rotation with
the same period as its orbital cycle.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> If you can extract rotation of the moon as an independent motion even
> though observations show its orbital trait keeps the same face to the
> observer on Earth then you are in intellectual territory which I don't
> think anybody really wants,regardless of how inconvenient it may be
> for those who follow stellar circumpolar motion and its framework.
If one placed some "imaginary" observers on the Moon, on the near
side, they would look at the Earth, and see that instead of staying
motionless in the sky, it would move slightly from side to side.
And when they lifted their eyes to stellar circumpolar motion, they
would find that it was uniform according to the time given by
mechanical clocks, with no variations, unlike the case for elliptical
orbital motion.
That is why we hold that tidal forces have made the Moon's rotation
coincide in period with its orbit, but they don't keep it facing the
Earth rigidly - the Earth moves in the Moon's sky corresponding to the
difference between unequal orbital motion and equal rotational motion.
Like the Equation of Time.
John Savard
Androcles
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:2d8eb622-2d68-42bc...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
John Savard
==============================================
For *technical* purposes, it is essential to think in terms of the Moon
having an even rotation with exactly the same even cycle as its uneven
orbital period.
Now all you need do is explain your meaning of "uneven", Savard.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> Now all you need do is explain your meaning of "uneven", Savard.
The orbital *period* isn't uneven, I'm sorry if I was unclear. It's
the orbital _motion_ during that period which is non-uniform.
The Moon orbits the Earth in an ellipse, not a perfect circle. So, by
Kepler's third law, it sweeps out equal areas in equal times - moving
faster in angular terms when it is closer to the Earth.
The Moon rotates, on the other hand, with a constant angular velocity.
So, near perigee, the Moon's rotation is not fast enough to compensate
for its orbital motion, and the Earth moves a little to the west in
its sky.
Near apogee, on the other hand, the Moon's rotation stays at its
constant value, but the rate of orbital motion in angular terms is
below average. So the Earth moves back to the east.
John Savard
palsing
> Rotation intrinsic to a celestial object such as the Earth's daily
> rotation causes the daylight/darkness cycle
EXACTLY. The moon's essentially monthly rotation cycle also causes a
daylight/darkness cycle on the moon, just like on the Earth. If the
moon didn't rotate with respect to the sun, how could this be? Clearly
the moon DOES rotates with respect to the Sun, and here we are again
talking about frames of reference. Why, we could also talk about the
length of the moon's solar day vs. the length of its sidereal day (it
may have a different name for the moon/Earth system), and how only one
of them is 360 degrees and the other is more, just like on Earth... l
but THAT conversation would only make you even crazier...
On the one hand, it is easy to believe that you remain totally
unteachable, so no one should be surprised that you still cannot grasp
the simplest of concepts. On the other hand, it is unlikely that
anyone so well read could really be this stupid, so the conclusion in
this case is that you are having a lot if fun pulling everyone's leg.
Maybe you are really an astrophysicist enjoying a little Geek humor.
Mark Twain MUST have had you in mind when he said this;
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who
are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it."
- Mark Twain
\Paul A
oriel36
> On 8/14/10 3:48 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 6:30 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/14/10 12:19 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> >>> What can be said of people who look out at the moon,see the same face
> >>> as it circuits the Earth and then conclude that it has a rotation and
> >>> its rotation period is the same as its orbital cycle !.
>
> >> One can take a couple of balls, paint a face on one to represent
> >> the near side of the moon and see that the moon makes one rotation
> >> about its axis as it make one orbit around the earth. It's pretty
> >> obvious, Gerald!
>
> > It is just one of these things where you look out,see the moon orbit
> > the Earth and notice that there is no rotation,it does not admit
> > debate other than if you are seeing rotation where there is none,the
> > debate with be over sanity as opposed to common sense and
> > intelligence.
>
> > We can look at the Earth rotating from an external point of view as it
> > turns in its daily cycle,you can even see the moon orbit the Earth in
> > its lunar cycle -
>
> Gerald you look at the earth... it keeps the same side facing you, yet
> you accept that it is rotating. The same is true for the moon. It is
> also rotating.
>
As you look out at the moon in its orbital circuit of the Earth it
does not rotate so there is something else going on here when people
conclude that the moon rotates.I did search through those Youtube
comments to see if one individual had the intelligence to question the
assertion of 'lunar rotation' and,in fact, only one person did (about
a year ago) so it is always nice to see that challenging ridiculous
conclusions is not entirely dead.
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments=1&v=OZIB_leg75Q
The use of a string analogy by that commentator is fine up to a point
and does the job of explaining that the moon has no intrinsic rotation
therefore it exposes its orbital behavior clearly in keeping the same
face to the observer on Earth and imitating the Earth's orbital
behavior as it moves with the Earth around the Sun and that is what is
fascinating,the governing factor is determined by heliocentric
dynamics rather than the local dynamic of the moon's orbital circuit
around the Earth.
> You have been wrong about the application of Kepler's 3rd law to the
> Fomalhaut system, the 360° rotation of the earth, the cause of earth's
> seasons, the duration of twilight calculations, and not the rotation
> of the moon. That's not a very good track record.
>
My goodness,when I think that readers can't correlate twilight lengths
with latitudinal speeds,the slower the latitudinal rotation the longer
the twilight with a maximum equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per
hour,it seemed like an intellectual bottom of sorts but I believe
interpreting rotation for the moon when it is not observed outdoes
even that basic twilight insight.
The moon does not rotate,you look out and see it doesn't rotate and
then consider how this ties in with the orbital behavior of the Earth
as it orbits the Sun insofar as the reason the moon keeps the same
face to us translates into something more productive when considering
its motion with the Earth around the Sun.
> If we were neighbors, I would encourage you to spend many an evening
> with me measuring things in the nighttime sky. Daytime too, for that
> matter. We could also get some broomsticks, balls and flashlights and
> build educational models.
I am not sure why people are behaving as though unintelligent
conclusions are preferable to conclusions which can not only be
reasoned out but explained with graphics in lieu of real time
imaging.You can explain why twilight variations occur using rotational
speeds at different latitudes through looking at the Earth from an
external vantage point yet because of the reliance on the stellar
circumpolar guys in the 17th century,you and your colleagues
positively refuse to believe what your own eyes can see,likewise with
the conclusion that the moon does not rotate while you and your
buddies insist that it does.
These are holocaust conditions Sam,the hostility is such that it does
not surface as explicit hatred to astronomy or more importantly,to
human reasoning itself,but there must be some sort of satisfaction in
doing something repulsive for no good reason than nobody objects for
why else would people reject a conclusion that the moon does not
rotate when it can be clearly seen not to.
Androcles
John Savard
==============================================
That's much better than "uneven". 9 out of 10.
Now explain N-S libration and the 19 year lunar cycle.
Quadibloc
> Now explain N-S libration and the 19 year lunar cycle.
North-South libration: The Moon's rotational axis is inclined to the
plane of its orbit. (And the Moon is also a noticeably finite distance
from the Earth; the results of this are also called libration.)
The 19 year lunar cycle: that's just a "coincidence". Whatever the
lengths of the tropical year and the synodic month, there would have
to be a rational approximation to the ratio between the two; the first
good such approximation happens to be 19 years to 235 lunations.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> On Aug 14, 1:50 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Rotation intrinsic to a celestial object such as the Earth's daily
> > rotation causes the daylight/darkness cycle
>
> EXACTLY. The moon's essentially monthly rotation cycle also causes a
> daylight/darkness cycle on the moon, just like on the Earth. If the
> moon didn't rotate with respect to the sun, how could this be?
Oh, you framehopping empiricist!
The Moon orbits the Earth, not the Sun. So that determines what gets
to be called "orbital motion", and what is called "rotation". So, at
least according to Oriel, the Moon's daylight/darkness cycle is caused
_by its orbital motion around the Earth_, and confusing that with
rotation is getting into bad "intellectual territory".
From a naive common-sense point of view, the fact that we always see
one face of the Moon from Earth *does* make it seem more reasonable to
say that the Moon isn't rotating - giving it a 27 1/3 day rotational
period instead (the one relative to the stars) seems like a nutty and
obsessive choice of definitions.
And 29 1/2 days (relative to the Sun) is just inconsistent. That's
going halfway out from the primary and stopping.
If it wasn't for east-west libration, which results from the
difference between the Moon's non-uniform motion in an elliptical
orbit and its regular rotation with the same period, there *would* be
no reason to prefer our sidereal definition of rotational period to
the naive one that Oriel is using.
So his conceptual error is actually a very natural one.
His... obstinacy... in not correcting it could be due to trolling, or
to senility. I'm suspecting that another factor is the following:
After Newton came along, showing that the laws of mechanics, combined
with an inverse-square law for gravity, yielded Kepler's three laws of
planetary motion, debate over the heliocentric theory versus the
geocentric theory was essentially over. It may have taken centuries
more before the Catholic Church officially pardoned Galileo, but after
Newton, the Catholics and the Lutherans and any other denomination
that criticized Copernicus started keeping awfully quiet.
Now, Oriel doesn't have anything against Copernicus. He praises
Copernicus highly.
Basically, it seems to me that his belief is this:
Catholic persecution of the heliocentric theory was unjust *by the
Church's own standards*. In Oriel's belief, Copernicus, Galileo, and
Kepler were perfectly consistent with Aristotle and Scholasticism,
rightly interpreted.
Newton was not. After Newton, theologians kept their hands off the
natural sciences. Scientists came up with their own theories - even
stuff like relativity and quantum mechanics - and the only judge to
which they bowed was reality, through the test of experiment, and the
review of their peers.
This is the pretentious unbridled speculation he is so unhappy about.
We need to get rid of empiricism, and get some "intellectual
discipline" back! So, Oriel will be happy when Catholic theologians,
steeped in Aristotle, but properly chastened by the Copernicus
debacle, provide sound intellectual guidance to the scientific
community so that it doesn't go astray.
One sees Creationists, who twist logic into knots because of their
attachment to the literal word of the Bible.
Few people display a similar attachment to Catholic theology. Oriel
appears to be the first such example I have encountered. Even the Pope
knows better than to be *that* Catholic.
John Savard
Androcles
On Aug 15, 3:30 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> Now explain N-S libration and the 19 year lunar cycle.
North-South libration: The Moon's rotational axis is inclined to the
plane of its orbit. (And the Moon is also a noticeably finite distance
from the Earth; the results of this are also called libration.)
===========================================
Too brief. 6 out of 10.
The 19 year lunar cycle: that's just a "coincidence". Whatever the
lengths of the tropical year and the synodic month, there would have
to be a rational approximation to the ratio between the two; the first
good such approximation happens to be 19 years to 235 lunations.
===========================================
Oh dear, how very uneven. Must try harder. 3 out of 10.
A synodic period of the Moon is marked by the return of the Moon to the same
phase, and is exactly 29.531 days long.
A sidereal month is 27.322 days
http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/animations/content/sidereal.html
Please EXPLAIN the metonic cycle.
Quadibloc
> Please EXPLAIN the metonic cycle.
Request undefined.
What, exactly, is there to explain?
The phases of the Moon, which are noticeable on Earth, and form the
traditional lunar month, have a period of about 29 1/2 days.
Twelve of them come close to making up a year, which is why we have
twelve months in our solar year - months that are 30 or 31 days long.
So twelve lunar months fall short.
If one wishes to have true lunar months - to keep track *both* of the
seasons *and* when there is a full moon by which to work after
nightfall - one will have to have a *thirteenth* (ooh, unlucky!) month
in the year every now and then.
Seven such extra months in a span of nineteen years happens to come
just about even. (One month in three years, and three months in eight
years, were less accurate approximations also used historically.)
But there isn't a cause for the fact that the Metonic cycle is such a
good approximation: that is just a coincidence.
John Savard
Androcles
Request undefined.
John Savard
======================================
What I was trying to do, Quadiblockhead, is get you to explain the
simplest of celestial mechanics to Kellerher (aka oriel36), but the best
you can manage is to mumble about approximate uneven coincidences
and snip anything that might actually be useful.
You and Kellerher are like two pea soups in a pot; you are coincidently
and approximately uneven.
oriel36
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
Here is what the moon looks like when it intervenes between the Earth
and Sun in keeping the same face to us in its orbital circuit -
http://www.sustainabilityninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/solar-eclipse.jpg
Here is how it looks when the Earth is between the moon orbiting the
Earth and the central Sun -
http://www.sustainabilityninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/solar-eclipse.jpg
The lunar daylight/darkness cycle which corresponds to its orbital
circuit of the Earth is an orbital trait and is observed as such,if
you believe the moon rotates then good look to you and all the other
'tidally locked' folk.As far as I am concerned there is nowhere else
to go if you can look out at the moon and conclude a rotation.
oriel36
>
> Here is how it looks when the Earth is between the moon orbiting the
> Earth and the central Sun -
>
>
> The lunar daylight/darkness cycle which corresponds to its orbital
> circuit of the Earth is an orbital trait and is observed as such,if
> you believe the moon rotates then good look to you and all the other
> 'tidally locked' folk.As far as I am concerned there is nowhere else
> to go if you can look out at the moon and conclude a rotation.
Apologises -
Here is what the moon looks like where the far side faces the Sun
while its orbital face remains turned to us -
http://www.sustainabilityninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/solar-eclipse.jpg
Here is what it look like looking out at the moon on the other side of
its orbital when our positions intervenes between the moon and the Sun
with the same face still facing us -
http://www.aldebaran.cz/bulletin/2009_14/fullmoon.jpg
Any questions then figure it out yourselves as soon as you get over
the ridiculous idea that the moon rotates.
Quadibloc
> Any questions then figure it out yourselves as soon as you get over
> the ridiculous idea that the moon rotates.
Here's another link:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moon_ap_per.html
with some images.
Or, better yet, this example of modern imaging
http://www.pixheaven.net/geant/041200.html
from the page
http://www.pixheaven.net/photo_us.php?nom=041200_9
John Savard
Painius
Here is what the moon looks like where the far side faces the Sun
while its orbital face remains turned to us -
http://www.sustainabilityninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/solar-eclipse.jpg
Here is what it look like looking out at the moon on the other side of
its orbital when our positions intervenes between the moon and the Sun
with the same face still facing us -
http://www.aldebaran.cz/bulletin/2009_14/fullmoon.jpg
Any questions then figure it out yourselves as soon as you get over
the ridiculous idea that the moon rotates.
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
You really need more practice. Your troll writing is pathetic.
What's next? "It's turtles all the way down?"
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be
consistent with the laws of nature."
> Michael Faraday
oriel36
>
> Here is what it look like looking out at the moon on the other side of
> its orbital when our positions intervenes between the moon and the Sun
> with the same face still facing us -
>
> http://www.aldebaran.cz/bulletin/2009_14/fullmoon.jpg
>
> Any questions then figure it out yourselves as soon as you get over
> the ridiculous idea that the moon rotates.
>
> P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
>
> You really need more practice. Your troll writing is pathetic.
>
> What's next? "It's turtles all the way down?"
>
> happy days and...
> starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth
>
> P.S.: "Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be
> consistent with the laws of nature."
> > Michael Faraday
>
> P.P.S.: http://astronomy.painellsworth.net
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
What makes the solar eclipse so special for another reason is that
observers get to watch lunar midnight,that rare event where the moon's
near side is in total darkness even though it is overshadowed,by want
of a better word, by the main solar eclipse.It is just something we
can share with the ancient astronomers who knew the Sun was obscured
by the Sun for 3 days each lunar cycle but the rare eclipse event
raises it to something all astronomers should enjoy,the Knowth lunar
calendar of 5200 years ago is a testament to how long our race has
look out on these things,only now we can add more detail -
http://www.knowth.com/stooke/knowth4.gif
I cannot say it is incumbent on contemporaries to add an additional
meaning to the solstices reflecting the way our moon orbits the Earth
and lunar midnight but I would like to think kindness and goodness is
not entirely dead regardless of what people think of me.
oriel36
Excuse me,tiredness has made me careless once more in respect to
proofreading ,the moon is obscured by the Sun for 3 days in its
circuit around the Earth, something which our ancestors noticed and
chiseled into a large rock 5200 years ago -
http://www.knowth.com/stooke/knowth4.gif
Observations of lunar midnight as the rare solar eclipse event happens
shows us the same face of the moon in a way that few people are
privileged to witness.It is an orbital trait of the moon as it
circuits the Earth that causes the lunar daylight/darkness cycle and
that is the only way to leave it.
Bob Myers
> Here is what the moon looks like where the far side faces the Sun
> while its orbital face remains turned to us -
What, exactly, is an "orbital face?"
> Any questions then figure it out yourselves as soon as you get over
> the ridiculous idea that the moon rotates.
Unless one uses their own definitions - and you certainly seem to -
rotation is
implicit in the definition of a tidally-locked orbiting body. As any
schoolchild
seems to be capable of understanding.
Bob M.
oriel36
None of you seem to like astronomy insofar as anyone can look out at
the moon as see it does not rotate leaving the lunar daylight/darkness
cycle explained by the moon's orbital circuit as it keeps the same
face to observers as it moves along its orbital circumference.To think
that people can conclude that the moon has an intrinsic rotation is so
repulsive that I would not pursue the arguments any further.
So much for NASA and the great technological achievements of landing
men on the moon,there is the Earth's orbital daylight/darkness cycle
which combines with daily rotation to generates variations in the
natural noon cycle and the seasons by turning slowly with respect to
the central Sun over an annual orbital cycle and then there is the
moon's daylight/darkness cycle which is entirely different which does
not rotate to the Earth in its lunar circuit.
Again,if you look out at the moon and conclude that it rotates must
take a type of effort I could not even imagine for if you wish to see
a celestial object have an intrinsic rotation it is possible to view
the Earth from space -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO6mjcog7js&feature=related
To see unrelenting hostility towards a basic astronomical facts is an
amazing for all the wrong reasons and I find the opposition to the
fact that the moon has no intrinsic rotation to be just as repulsive
as all the other astronomical insights that are rejected for no good
reason.
So,stick with your rotating moon,it ain't astronomy,it ain't science
and I sure do not know what it is.
Bob Myers
> So,stick with your rotating moon,it ain't astronomy, it ain't science
> and I sure do not know what it is.
I'm not sure why I'm even trying this - it is very clear that many far
better
equipped than I have already tried to reason with you and failed - but
perhaps
you'll answer just one question for me:
Imagine that the Earth were to suddenly vanish. Describe the resulting
motion of the Moon following this event.
Bob M.
Painius
>
> So,stick with your rotating moon,it ain't astronomy,it ain't science
> and I sure do not know what it is.
Then let's talk astronomy and science. The following link
will take all readers who *really* want to understand the
Moon's rotation to an animation that clearly shows that
the Moon rotates on its axis...
http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/animations/content/moonphase.html
Notes:
1) This animation depicts the Earth-Moon system in its
simplest form: The two-body problem. The Sun is there
only for lighting purposes. (You might note that the Moon's
orbit in this animation is actually perpendicular - 90 degrees
- to it's actual orbit. To be fully "correct", the Sun should be
either at the top or the bottom, not to the right. However,
the effect would be the same.)
2) As the animation proceeds, realize that the orbiting Moon
is presenting THE SAME FACE to the Earth as it orbits. The
ONLY way this could happen is if the Moon rotates on its axis
at the same rate as it orbits the Earth. It takes about a month
to orbit the Earth, and it takes about a month to spin one full
rotation on its axis. If this were not true, if the Moon were
not rotating on its axis, then it would show different faces at
different times during its Earth orbit.
3) Proceed briefly with some common sense. How many
astronomical objects are there that do not spin, that hang
there with absolutely zero rotational speed? Everything
spins, everything rotates -- to include the Moon.
4) For those Gentle Readers who would like to take this to
the next level, science is still studying the more complex
three-body problem. This pulls the Sun into the equation as
the central body that, while the Earth and Moon interact in a
way similar to what the above animation shows, they are
both also revolving around the Sun at the same time. And
their common orbital velocities are over 100,000 km/hr (or
66,000 miles/hr).
Ralph Hertle gave me some drawings that depict the Solar
orbits of the Earth and Moon, and you can see them here...
http://ebooksgolden.com/Selene_pics.html
Another interesting find is that the Earth and Moon orbit the
Sun in "scallop-shaped" patterns. There is more on this on
the following web page...
http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/convex.html
Did you know? that when the Moon is in its "New" phase and
closest to the Sun, the Sun's gravitational force (or effect) on
the Moon is more than TWICE as strong as Earth's?
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be
consistent with the laws of nature."
> Michael Faraday
P.P.S.: http://astronomy.painellsworth.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
Painius
news:4c69fdcb$0$4990$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/animations/content/moonphase.html
>
> 1) This animation depicts the Earth-Moon system in its
> simplest form: The two-body problem. The Sun is there
> only for lighting purposes. (You might note that the Moon's
> orbit in this animation is actually perpendicular - 90 degrees
> - to it's actual orbit. To be fully "correct", the Sun should be
> either at the top or the bottom, not to the right. However,
> the effect would be the same.)
My bad. This note should read...
1) This animation depicts the Earth-Moon system in its
simplest form: The two-body problem. The Sun is there
only for lighting purposes.
The part in parentheses should be ignored.
JeffRelf.F-M.FM
Re: This animation: Sumanasinc.COM/webcontent/animations/content/moonphase.html To best visualise the moon's rotation, place it in the center of the animation, with the earth orbiting it, and show a observation tower, fixed to the surface of the moon, so it always faces earth. oriel36 can't imagine the moon's perspective, obviously.
Quadibloc
> 2) As the animation proceeds, realize that the orbiting Moon
> is presenting THE SAME FACE to the Earth as it orbits. The
> ONLY way this could happen is if the Moon rotates on its axis
> at the same rate as it orbits the Earth. It takes about a month
> to orbit the Earth, and it takes about a month to spin one full
> rotation on its axis. If this were not true, if the Moon were
> not rotating on its axis, then it would show different faces at
> different times during its Earth orbit.
But that depends on how you define "rotation".
Since the animation shows the Moon orbiting the Earth in a perfectly
circular orbit, the Moon isn't rotating at all relative to a line
going from the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon.
So, if you think of the Solar System as being built like an orrery,
you wouldn't need to put a pulley on the arm that held the Moon as it
orbited the Earth - it could sit still on that arm, because as that
arm moved the Moon around the Earth in its orbital motion, it would
also supply the "rotation".
Remember, Oriel also believes that the Earth rotates on its axis in 24
hours (as it does *relative to the direction from the Earth to its
primary, the Sun*) and not 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
To show him that his definition of "rotation", while actually quite a
natural one for a naive person to use, is not tenable, it seems to me
that it's necessary to talk about the east-west libration of the Moon.
That (like part of the Equation of Time) results from the difference
between a *uniform* rotation of the Moon, in which it rotates by equal
angles in equal times, and the orbital motion, in an elliptic path, of
the Moon, where the Moon moves in its orbit through a larger angle in
the same time at perigee than it does in apogee.
Maybe this is too complicated, and it's true he hasn't listened to me
when I explained it. But I don't see how this can be avoided, as
otherwise saying that the Moon "rotates" or "doesn't rotate" is almost
just a matter of personal taste. It's libration that shows that
rotation is an objective fact that has to be acknowledged when one is
trying to do serious astronomical work.
John Savard
Painius
news:fcd90a73-b645-425f...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
John Savard
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
Yes, as you say, it's a matter of perspective, however perspective
can only get you so far. From the Earthly perspective, the Sun
revolves around the Earth, hence the undying, enduring "Sunrise"
and "Sunset".
John, i could be wrong, but i've always felt that the librations of
the Moon were due to a combination of what you describe AND
the "dampening" of the oscillations of "locking in". Another
factor might be the changing of the Earth's frictional surfaces as
the Moon orbits over them. Sort of a tidal drag and bounceback.
Oriel either cannot/will not grasp the reality, or is a pathetic
troller. Either way, "dense as the population of New York City"
comes to mind. <G>
Quadibloc
> John, i could be wrong, but i've always felt that the librations of
> the Moon were due to a combination of what you describe AND
> the "dampening" of the oscillations of "locking in". Another
> factor might be the changing of the Earth's frictional surfaces as
> the Moon orbits over them. Sort of a tidal drag and bounceback.
No, I'm afraid you are mistaken here.
Tidal drag is a very slow process. It took millions of years for the
relatively weak tidal forces of the Earth on the Moon to slow the
Moon's rotation until the point was reached where, since the Moon kept
one face to the Earth, tidal friction could slow the Moon's rotation
no more.
It is true, of course, that tidal forces still exist, so they will
pull in the opposite direction to the Moon's librations. That effect
would be very slight, and I'm not sure if it has even been detected
yet, though.
Thus, for any practical purpose, tidal perturbations to the Moon's
rotation can be ignored in the short term, and the Moon's rotation is
essentially uniform.
John Savard
oriel36
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> news:d7312457-f1e6-4cdb...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > So,stick with your rotating moon,it ain't astronomy,it ain't science
> > and I sure do not know what it is.
>
> Then let's talk astronomy and science. The following link
> will take all readers who *really* want to understand the
> Moon's rotation to an animation that clearly shows that
> the Moon rotates on its axis...
>
Somehow people can defy their own judgement in that looking at a moon
that is not rotating is just as certain as a rotating Earth -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO6mjcog7js&feature=related
Repeating the imperative of not mistaking an orbital trait for an
intrinsic rotational one is not going to make the slightest difference
to people who imagine the moon is rotating.I could use an analogy to
show that the moon's orbital characteristic as it orbits the Earth is
entirely different than the Earth's orbital characteristic around the
Sun but apparently people have never considered the Earth's orbital
daylight/darkness cycle which is exposed at the polar coordinates as 6
months of Darkness followed by 6 months of daylight.
The readers in SAA should be able to express the difference using a
chair and a broom to show that the Earth has two independent motions
of daily rotation and orbital motion whereas the moon has just one,at
leasts as it orbits the Earth.Walk around the chair (Earth)keeping the
same side to the chair expresses the moon's orbital trait.I have
explained the Earth's orbital trait using a broom handle to substitute
for rotation and act as a beacon for the orbital behavior of the Earth
that I need not explain it again.
Use your eyes,the pleasant experience of seeing the moon move
incrementally in its circuit of the Earth over a lunar cycle shows no
rotation and if you are seeing rotation you ain't enjoying the
experience.There is so much to say on this topic as it is fascinating
when going on to consider the moon's motion along with the Earth
around the central Sun but without the affirmation of the moon's
orbital trait around the Earth no consideration is possible.
oriel36
The trouble is that people are required to use their interpretative
instincts at such a basic level that literally there is no imagination
required,if you see a rotating moon where there is none then it
indicates that either your imagination is running wild or something
much worse.The nuisances see no boundary between fact and fiction and
apply whatever reasoning is needed to suit a desired conclusion,it
happened recently with carbon dioxide/global temperature,
It is great to use the speculative/imaginative instincts,I use them
myself for all sorts of reasons to supplement the main human faculty
of interpretation but in this era where the speculative/modeling
agendas are extremely unrestrained it is difficult to find individuals
who can adopt the more satisfying interpretative approaches to draw
conclusions when possible based on physical considerations.It just
happens that looking out at the moon that does not rotate is probably
the most fundamental interpretative conclusion possible.
There is no point in knocking people as we are the only people that
can alter things in such a way that the complex compound motions which
occur in the celestial arena can be made manageable by looking at each
motion independently and study the characteristics of each motion such
as how the Earth's motion around the Earth is fundamentally different
than the Earth's circuit of the Sun.Far from being dismayed,I am
actually hopeful that our generation would decide to value what future
generations think of us in cutting our own path with the tolls and
observations we have rather than leaning on the late 17th century
approach which is both silly and cannot compete with 21st century
technological advances and that is what distinguishes the 21st century
point of view from your 17th century perspective.
Androcles
On Aug 16, 9:11 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
> 2) As the animation proceeds, realize that the orbiting Moon
> is presenting THE SAME FACE to the Earth as it orbits. The
> ONLY way this could happen is if the Moon rotates on its axis
> at the same rate as it orbits the Earth. It takes about a month
> to orbit the Earth, and it takes about a month to spin one full
> rotation on its axis. If this were not true, if the Moon were
> not rotating on its axis, then it would show different faces at
> different times during its Earth orbit.
But that depends on how you define "rotation".
==============================================
A body rotates on its own axis and revolves about its barycentre that
it shares with another body.
==============================================
Since the animation shows the Moon orbiting the Earth in a perfectly
circular orbit, the Moon isn't rotating at all relative to a line
going from the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon.
So, if you think of the Solar System as being built like an orrery,
you wouldn't need to put a pulley on the arm that held the Moon as it
orbited the Earth - it could sit still on that arm, because as that
arm moved the Moon around the Earth in its orbital motion, it would
also supply the "rotation".
Remember, Oriel also believes that the Earth rotates on its axis in 24
hours (as it does *relative to the direction from the Earth to its
primary, the Sun*) and not 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
To show him that his definition of "rotation", while actually quite a
natural one for a naive person to use, is not tenable, it seems to me
that it's necessary to talk about the east-west libration of the Moon.
==============================================
Several years ago I suggested to Kellerher that he aligned a star with
two stakes in the ground and noted the transit time the next night and
the night after that. He flatly refused and ranted about Newton and
Flamsteed being wrong. Bigots are not worth bothering with.
==============================================
That (like part of the Equation of Time) results from the difference
between a *uniform* rotation of the Moon, in which it rotates by equal
angles in equal times, and the orbital motion, in an elliptic path, of
the Moon, where the Moon moves in its orbit through a larger angle in
the same time at perigee than it does in apogee.
Maybe this is too complicated, and it's true he hasn't listened to me
when I explained it. But I don't see how this can be avoided, as
otherwise saying that the Moon "rotates" or "doesn't rotate" is almost
just a matter of personal taste. It's libration that shows that
rotation is an objective fact that has to be acknowledged when one is
trying to do serious astronomical work.
==============================================
Yeah, well, how do you discuss the difference between axial precession
and precession of aphelion when its all a matter of uneven approximate
coincidences?
Androcles
On Aug 16, 10:08 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
> John, i could be wrong, but i've always felt that the librations of
> the Moon were due to a combination of what you describe AND
> the "dampening" of the oscillations of "locking in". Another
> factor might be the changing of the Earth's frictional surfaces as
> the Moon orbits over them. Sort of a tidal drag and bounceback.
No, I'm afraid you are mistaken here.
Tidal drag is a very slow process. It took millions of years for the
relatively weak tidal forces of the Earth on the Moon to slow the
Moon's rotation until the point was reached where, since the Moon kept
one face to the Earth, tidal friction could slow the Moon's rotation
no more.
==============================================
No, you are mistaken here.
Tidal drag is a very fast process. It only took millions of years, not
billions, for the relatively strong tidal forces of the Earth on the Moon
to slow the Moon's rotation until the point was reached where the
Moon kept one face to the Earth.
The relatively weak tidal forces of the Moon on the Earth is still acting
on the crust as it slides over the mantle and breaks the continents
apart, generating enormous friction which is heating the rock until it
melts and results in volcanoes, quakes and plate tectonics. Gravity
doesn't just work on the oceans alone, although trillions of tons of
water are moved twice a day around our coasts.
===============================================
It is true, of course, that tidal forces still exist, so they will
pull in the opposite direction to the Moon's librations. That effect
would be very slight, and I'm not sure if it has even been detected
yet, though.
Thus, for any practical purpose, tidal perturbations to the Moon's
rotation can be ignored in the short term, and the Moon's rotation is
essentially uniform.
John Savard
===============================================
For any practical purposes Earth's rotation is far from uniform and has been
detected.
http://tinyurl.com/yloyu57
A practical purpose might be very slight earthquake prediction.
A very slight quake brought down the San Francisco Oakland Bay bridge in
1989, writing off some cars (important)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFwJR04qBys
and decimated Port-au-Prince, Haiti in Jan 2010, killing 230,000 people
(unimportant).
Quadibloc
> Yeah, well, how do you discuss the difference between axial precession
> and precession of aphelion when its all a matter of uneven approximate
> coincidences?
They're both very _slow_, as I would expect (from the fact that both
are caused by perturbations, and thus by gravitational influences much
smaller than the gravitation of the body's primary), so it isn't a
*coincidence* that (for example, in the case of the Earth instead of
the Moon) the tropical year and the anomalistic year are both very
close to each other and close to the sidereal year.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Repeating the imperative of not mistaking an orbital trait for an
> intrinsic rotational one
There's your mistake right there.
It may seem as if the motion of the Moon relative to the stars or the
Sun is caused by its orbit around the Earth, as it clearly has no
rotation of its own, because it always keeps the same face turned to
us.
But that's an illusion. Tidal forces did bring the Moon into a
rotation which matched its orbital period. But the Moon still rotates
freely, and librations are evidence of that fact - the Moon's rotation
is not perfectly in step with its orbital motion around the Earth, but
instead it falls behind and catches up.
Basically, you're allowing yourself to think of the Moon as if it was
being pulled in its orbit around the Earth by a crystal sphere. You
haven't even really caught up with Kepler, never mind Newton.
John Savard
palsing
... Walk around the chair (Earth)keeping the
> same side to the chair expresses the moon's orbital trait...
OK, so let's say you did this in your driveway, and when you start
your lunar orbit, facing the chair, you note that your front porch is
directly lined up beyond the chair, in front of you. Half way around
your orbit you will see that, while the chair is still in front of
you, the front porch is now behind you. Clearly, while not rotating
with respect to the chair, you are certainly rotating with respect to
the front porch. ROTATING!
Substitute Earth for 'chair', and substitute sun for 'front porch', or
substitute Mars for 'front porch', or Jupiter, or fixed stars,
anything out there other than the Earth, and any idiot can see that
the moon indeed rotates with respect to any of them.
Surely you can't deny such a simple observation? Just another 'proof'
that you can't handle simple alternate frames of reference.
"A few observations and much reasoning leads to error; many
observations and a little reasoning to truth."
- Alexis Carrel
\Paul A
Androcles
John Savard
=========================================
But that depends on how you define "_slow_".
The precession of aphelion for the Moon is the same as for the Earth, very
_slow_.
The axial precession of the Moon is very very very _fast_.
How do you discuss the difference between very _slow_ and
approximately unevenly very very very _fast_?
Bob Myers
In short, you're not even going to attempt to answer. Could've saved
yourself
a lot of typing by just saying that up front.
But thanks for playing...
Bob M.
oriel36
The Earth has two main dynamics,daily rotation which causes the
diurnal daylight/darkness and the orbital motion of the Earth which is
responsible for the orbital daylight/darkness cycle exposed at the
polar coordinates as 6 months of darkness followed by 6 months of
daylight with a brief orbital twilight at the equinoxes.The latter
cycle has nothing whatsoever to do with daily rotation but is a
consequence of the slow turning of the planet with respect to the
central Sun hence the orbital daylight/darkness cycle is equivalent to
the orbital cycle of the Earth and its omission from explanations is
pretty much a serious injustice.
The lunar daylight/darkness cycle is also an orbital
characteristic,this time due to the fact that the moon does not have
an intrinsic rotation so the transition from daylight to darkness is
due to the specifics of the moon's orbital circuit around the
Earth,the far side receives maximum exposure to daylight when the
moon's position is between the Earth and the Sun and the side the
faces Earth's observers is in total daylight when our position is
between the moon and the Sun.
It is not just explaining the lunar daylight/darkness cycle where the
cycle is coincident with its orbital period around the Earth,it is
also explaining the difference with the Earth's orbital cycle where
they experience 6 months of darkness and 6 months of daylight at the
North/South poles as a consequence of the orbital behavior of the
Earth so all this is important for a number of reasons.It takes
nothing more than good graphics to express all this is manageable form
to a wider population and does something more important,it uses modern
tools to raise the standard of astronomy above a level that I care not
to consider,at least no longer.
palsing
> The lunar daylight/darkness cycle is also an orbital
> characteristic,this time due to the fact that the moon does not have
> an intrinsic rotation...
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong,"
- Richard P. Feynman
“Talking with you is sort of the conversational equivalent of an out
of body experience.”
- Calvin & Hobbes
\Paul A
Dr J R Stockton
>, Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:11:05, Painius <starswi...@maol.com> posted:
>"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
>news:d7312457-f1e6-4cdb...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> So,stick with your rotating moon,it ain't astronomy,it ain't science
>> and I sure do not know what it is.
>
>Then let's talk astronomy and science.
It's a waste of effort trying that with Kelleher.
>Did you know? that when the Moon is in its "New" phase and
>closest to the Sun, the Sun's gravitational force (or effect) on
>the Moon is more than TWICE as strong as Earth's?
That is no doubt true, but it is put in a misleading manner. Because
the orbits are near-circles, and the Moon's is much smaller than the
Earth's, the Sun-Earth, Sun-Moon, and Earth-Moon forces are each
essentially constant. Therefore, the phase of the Moon does not affect
significantly the ratio of the two main forces upon it.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity3.htm#Moon>.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
dwight
> On Aug 15, 2:05 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> > On Aug 14, 6:35 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
>
> > > When your Earthly perspective tells you that the Moon does
> > > not rotate, then you use science and logic to learn that if the
> > > Moon did not rotate, then your Earthly perspective would let
> > > you see the entire surface of the Moon over its monthly cycle.
>
> > Rotation intrinsic to a celestial object such as the Earth's daily
> > rotation causes the daylight/darkness cycle,the fact that the polar
> > coordinates turn with respect to the Sun in causing the orbital
> > daylight/darkness cycle of 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months
> > of darkness represents an orbital trait,the behavior of the Earth as
> > it orbits the Sun in point of fact, hence its orbital daylight/
> > darkness cycle is equivalent to its orbital motion around the Sun.In
> > short,don't mix an orbital trait for a rotational one so that if you
> > cannot observe a non-rotating moon and interpret it as such,then you
> > are in an intellectual state that is far from intelligence.
>
> > As far as I am concerned,the explanation is more Pixar than NASA as
> > all it needs is a few good graphics.
>
>
> > then there is nothing anyone can do to help.
>
> > Personally, i think you sound like just another troller. So
> > fish away, silly goose, fish away.
>
> > starry starry nights!
>
> > --
> > Indelibly yours,
> > Paine Ellsworth
>
> > our heroes and she-roes!" > Maya Angelou
>
> > P.P.S.: http://astronomy.painellsworth.net
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
>
> and Sun in keeping the same face to us in its orbital circuit -
>
> http://www.sustainabilityninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/solar-e...
>
> Here is how it looks when the Earth is between the moon orbiting the
> Earth and the central Sun -
>
> http://www.sustainabilityninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/solar-e...
>
> The lunar daylight/darkness cycle which corresponds to its orbital
> circuit of the Earth is an orbital trait and is observed as such,if
> you believe the moon rotates then good look to you and all the other
> 'tidally locked' folk.As far as I am concerned there is nowhere else
> to go if you can look out at the moon and conclude a rotation.
Hi
I can but assume that the moon rotates if I allow the earth to be
rotating.
As I am on the earth and it is rotating. I'm standing on a rotating
earth and therefore rotating myself. Anything, like a ball held in my
hand
that shows the same face to me must also be rotating with me. If I
were
to hold the ball at the distance of the moon, it would still be
rotating
even though it had the same face towards me.
Any other explanation doesn't make any sense.
You don't seem to make any sense.
We all know that you see us as idiots. We see you as crazy.
Dwight
Androcles
"dwight" <dke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f282794a-19c6-4154...@g17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
I've never been quite sure if Kellerher is simply insane, stupid beyond all
credibility, or a quasi-intelligent malicious troll trying to jerk chains.
palsing
> I've never been quite sure if Kellerher is simply insane, stupid beyond all
> credibility, or a quasi-intelligent malicious troll trying to jerk chains.
Exactly my own feelings.
On several occasions in the past I believed that he had given himself
away... only to come up with yet another outrageous proposal that
resets the whole question...
oriel36
You are trying to describe the moon's orbital motion and its
characteristic,not rotation.The moon's orbital circuit of the Earth is
entirely independent of the Earth's rotation so your analogy,however
quaint, actually expresses the opposite of what is intended.The only
proper analogy is to walk around a chair while keeping the same
shoulder facing the chair/Earth thereby imitating what the moon is
actually doing independent of the motion of the Earth to determine
that the moon does not have an intrinsic rotation as the Earth does.
Your analogy is typically homocentric but that is not an insult as
such but merely a consequence of trying to apply experimental sciences
directly into observations,something which really began in earnest
with Isaac Newton,so that if you find yourself seeing a rotating moon
where there is none,there is an orbiting moon and the way it does a
circuit of the Earth,but concluding an intrinsic rotation lacks basic
common sense.
> Any other explanation doesn't make any sense.
> You don't seem to make any sense.
> We all know that you see us as idiots. We see you as crazy.
> Dwight
If you want a 'rotating' moon you will not be capable of making
comparisons with the entirely different orbital behavior of the Earth
as it orbits the Sun and how its orbital daylight/darkness cycle
corresponds to its orbital period.I cannot answer for why people would
prefer to ignore the orbital behavior of the Earth as it moves around
the Sun in that it turns slowly to the central Sun in causing the
seasons and the orbital cycle is exposed at the North/South poles as 6
months of darkness followed by 6 months of daylight.
So,you and your colleagues ,it doesn't matter if you are individuals
or NASA, assign intrinsic rotation to the moon where there is none
but mistake an orbital characteristic for rotation and then conclude
the moon rotates over an orbital cycle.When considering the Earth's
orbital motion the opposite is done and the orbital characteristic is
completely ignored insofar as the Earth has a single daylight/darkness
cycle arising strictly from its orbital motion.
This business of calling me crazy for explaining things like how the
steady progression of 24 hour days transfers to steady daily rotation
at a rate of 15 degrees per hour should have stopped a long time
ago,the idea is not to convince people who do not want to consider why
the Earth turns once in 24 hours but rather to show how the pieces fit
together to make it what it is,the same with the twilight variations
explanation,the seasonal one and even the more speculative one based
on geological consequences of rotation.
I have worked on engineering projects where the highest standard of
reasoning is required and only a handful know the full ins and outs as
to how all the intricate components and systems come together to make
a plant,make it work and what can go wrong if one component or one
section does not work with another,in some respects,astronomy at this
technical level far exceeds this type of expertise.The point is,that
if you are seeing lunar rotation across a lunar daylight/darkness
cycle then it is impossible to consider any other dynamic and its
characteristic for no other reason than if you fail at a level of
lunar dynamics where the motion can be seen directly then it becomes
an issue of common sense or lack of it.
Mike Collins
> You are trying to describe the moon's orbital motion and its
> characteristic,not rotation.The moon's orbital circuit of the Earth is
> entirely independent of the Earth's rotation so your analogy,however
> quaint, actually expresses the opposite of what is intended.
You couldn't be more wrong. The moon's orbit is constantly being
modified by the Earth's rotation and vice versa.
The moon generates a tidal bulge on the Earth and it's oceans.
The Earth rotates faster than the moon's orbit and in the same
direction so the ocean's tidal bulge is speeded up by the Earth's
rotation which in turn speeds up the moon and moves it into a higher
orbit.
This process has been and still is being measured using the laser
reflectors placed on the moon by Apollo astronauts.
The only
> proper analogy is to walk around a chair while keeping the same
> shoulder facing the chair/Earth thereby imitating what the moon is
> actually doing independent of the motion of the Earth to determine
> that the moon does not have an intrinsic rotation as the Earth does.
>
You can't do this without rotating once per "orbit".
> Your analogy is typically homocentric but that is not an insult as
> such but merely a consequence of trying to apply experimental sciences
> directly into observations,something which really began in earnest
> with Isaac Newton,so that if you find yourself seeing a rotating moon
> where there is none,there is an orbiting moon and the way it does a
> circuit of the Earth,but concluding an intrinsic rotation lacks basic
> common sense.
This is just nonsense. The observations confirm experimental science.
You just don't want to believe them because your view of the world is
religious amd mystical not scientific. You want to be told the amswer
by an ancient sage. Science doesn't care about personalities. When a
scientist is proved wrong he or she, if a "proper" scientist will
accept the new reality.
> I have worked on engineering projects where the highest standard of
> reasoning is required
Garbage in garbage out.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> On 19 Aug, 08:01, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only
> > proper analogy is to walk around a chair while keeping the same
> > shoulder facing the chair/Earth thereby imitating what the moon is
> > actually doing independent of the motion of the Earth to determine
> > that the moon does not have an intrinsic rotation as the Earth does.
> You can't do this without rotating once per "orbit".
Yes, but he counts that one rotation as being a _result_ of the Moon's
orbit around the Earth, rather than as being part of the Moon's
intrinsic rotation.
Similarly, he claims that the intrinsic rotational period of the Earth
is 24 hours, rather than 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds. Despite
being aware of the Equation of Time.
Look at the minute hand on a clock. It rotates around the center of
the dial once an hour.
Do people normally think of the individual parts of that minute hand -
say, the little arrowhead on its tip, as rotating themselves? No; it
changes in orientation, yes, but that's because it partakes of the
rotation of the hour hand as a whole.
So he doesn't *really* deny that the Moon rotates relative to the Sun
(so as to have phases) or relative to the stars. He's just saying that
_this_ rotation is really part of the Moon's orbital motion around the
Earth, rather than an intrinsic rotation of the Moon.
The reason he is wrong, of course, is that the Moon isn't attached to
a mechanical arm that pulls it along in its orbit around the Earth. It
combines an elliptical orbit with an independent, free, and uniform
rotation which was gently pushed into having the same period by tidal
friction. The difference between the two shows up in east-west
libration.
This is why we know it doesn't make sense to treat all of the Moon's
rotation as being part of its orbital motion - or 1/365th part of the
Earth's rotation as part of its orbital motion around the Sun either,
since here the Equation of Time shows the same thing.
I guess this argument is 'way too complicated for him, but if one
doesn't go to that level, it's only a quibble about definitions - and
that won't persuade him to change his definition of rotation.
John Savard
Androcles
John Savard
===========================================
You are almost right, but you've overlooked Kellerher's spelling
of "geo" and his egocentric model wherein he is at the centre of
the universe. Reverse the 'e' and 'g' and it all becomes clear.
The Sun revolves around Kellerher every 24 hours (Kellerher's model)
and the stars revolve around Kellerher in 24 hours and 4 minutes,
taking longer by 4 minutes.
The Moon goes even slower (24 hours and 48 minutes) and the phase
of the Moon depends on the relative position of the Sun when it isn't
shining out of Kellerher's arse.
Sam Wormley
> I have worked on engineering projects where the highest standard of
> reasoning is required and only a handful know the full ins and outs as
> to how all the intricate components and systems come together to make
> a plant,make it work and what can go wrong if one component or one
> section does not work with another,in some respects,astronomy at this
> technical level far exceeds this type of expertise.
How can this be? You don't even know algebra, Gerald!
palsing
Oh, I think he knows a lot more than he lets on... I think he is
having the time of his life just stirring up the $hit here...
Greg Neill
Someone has to sweep the floors and empty the trash.
oriel36
wrote:
> On 19 Aug, 08:01, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You are trying to describe the moon's orbital motion and its
> > characteristic,not rotation.The moon's orbital circuit of the Earth is
> > entirely independent of the Earth's rotation so your analogy,however
> > quaint, actually expresses the opposite of what is intended.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong. The moon's orbit is constantly being
> modified by the Earth's rotation and vice versa.
> The moon generates a tidal bulge on the Earth and it's oceans.
> The Earth rotates faster than the moon's orbit and in the same
> direction so the ocean's tidal bulge is speeded up by the Earth's
> rotation which in turn speeds up the moon and moves it into a higher
> orbit.
> This process has been and still is being measured using the laser
> reflectors placed on the moon by Apollo astronauts.
>
The lunar orbital period mirrors its lunar daylight/darkness cycle and
likewise,even though the orbital characteristics are different,the
Earth orbital daylight/darkness cycle is coincident with its orbital
period.
The Earth has an intrinsic rotation,this causes the daily daylight/
darkness cycle .
The Earth has an orbital motion and has an orbital daylight/darkness
cycle coincident with its orbital cycle where it is exposed almost
totally at the North/South poles as 6 months of daylight and 6 months
of darkness.
This era is so poor at interpretation that it sees lunar rotation
where there is none and cannot express the orbital characteristic of
the Earth needed to distinguish it from the daily daylight/darkness
cycle and its daily rotational cause.
> The only> proper analogy is to walk around a chair while keeping the same
> > shoulder facing the chair/Earth thereby imitating what the moon is
> > actually doing independent of the motion of the Earth to determine
> > that the moon does not have an intrinsic rotation as the Earth does.
>
> You can't do this without rotating once per "orbit".
>
I wish people would grow up,as the moon orbits the Earth it keeps the
same side to the Earth as opposed to the Earth's orbital
characteristic is turning slowly through 360 degrees with respect to
the central Sun,there is a huge difference centered on orbital
characteristics which can be easily distinguished using the moon's and
the Earth's orbital motions as a guideline.
> > Your analogy is typically homocentric but that is not an insult as
> > such but merely a consequence of trying to apply experimental sciences
> > directly into observations,something which really began in earnest
> > with Isaac Newton,so that if you find yourself seeing a rotating moon
> > where there is none,there is an orbiting moon and the way it does a
> > circuit of the Earth,but concluding an intrinsic rotation lacks basic
> > common sense.
>
> This is just nonsense. The observations confirm experimental science.
This must be some empirical mantra because people are only expected to
look out,interpret a straightforward observation of an orbiting moon
and then conclude the moon has no intrinsic rotation as the Earth does
hences its lunar daylight/darkness cycle is coincident with its
orbital period.You are considering a rotation where the 'axis' is
centered on the Earth as as I said before,that is just plain
repulsive.
> You just don't want to believe them because your view of the world is
> religious amd mystical not scientific. You want to be told the amswer
> by an ancient sage. Science doesn't care about personalities. When a
> scientist is proved wrong he or she, if a "proper" scientist will
> accept the new reality.
>
Nothing I can do with that.
> > I have worked on engineering projects where the highest standard of
> > reasoning is required
>
> Garbage in garbage out.
Well,if people like yourselves can look out and see a rotating moon
let alone conclude one,it is at a point where functioning reasoning
ceases.In order to leave it at a level of 'debate' it is best at its
basic observational form as maybe dislike of me has some bearing on
the outcome,at least as a conclusion, but c'mon guys,this is as bad or
as basic as it astronomically gets insofar as it relies on
interpreting a direct observation of the moon and nothing as
complicated as being on a rotating and orbitally moving Earth.
No intelligent person can conclude intrinsic rotation of the moon when
the lunar daylight/darkness cycle it coincident with its orbital
circuit of the Earth.
Painius
"Dr J R Stockton" <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:x59d4pYl...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid...
Two things...
1) First, that is an awesome link(!), and while it treats orbits of
moons and planets around the Sun mostly in "general", much
of the info confirms Asimov's proposal that Earth's Moon is a
full-fledged major planet in its own right. I have bookmarked
your web page !
2) Your URL links do not show up in Outlook Express as viable
links. I suggest that you omit the first four symbols (URL:)
in order to make your links viable in some other newsreaders.
Thank you very much !
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "We turn not older with years, but newer
every day." > Emily Dickinson
Litus Arare
"palsing" <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7923c13-5a4b-4d78...@h17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
LOL!
If only we could devise an automatic dispersal system for *ALL*
computers.
oriel36
Well Sam,if you walk around a chair with the same shoulder constantly
facing the chair in imitating how the moon orbits the Earth and then
introduce a broom handle to act as a substitute for the Earth's dual
motions of daily rotation and orbital to imitate motion around the
Sun you will see almost immediately how the orbital behavior of the
Earth is different from the moon's orbital behavior.
The moon has an orbital motion,it does not have an intrinsic rotation
and in that brief insight is an incredible amount of information.When
I can, I concentrate on what can be most productive with a response
and not to get into the insulting business and that is why the others
are wasting their time as I am not bothered whether they dislike me or
not,the only testament to the validity of an astronomical insight is
whether observations match physical considerations,at least at a level
for those who wish to investigate astronomy at that level.Concluding a
rotation for the moon and the hostility to the insight that the lunar
daylight/darkness cycle is an orbital trait and not a rotational one
is pretty much fundamental and I will leave it open for debate
although I really see none.
Remember Sam,the Earth has a slow 360 degree rotation to the central
Sun as its orbital daylight/darkness cycle is coincident with its
orbital period and easily recognized as the polar cycle of 6 months of
darkness followed by a complete cycle of 6 months of daylight,when you
comprehend this you will fully understand the Earth's orbital cycle as
rotation and why the moon has no intrinsic rotation,orbital or
otherwise.
It is not my business to indicate just what a modification this
actually is but it is already an injustice in the extreme.
Quadibloc
> This era is so poor at interpretation that it sees lunar rotation
> where there is none and cannot express the orbital characteristic of
> the Earth needed to distinguish it from the daily daylight/darkness
> cycle and its daily rotational cause.
It is indeed natural to think of the Moon as not rotating, since it
always shows the same face to us. Why not think of the Moon's changes
in orientation, relative to the Sun or the stars, as part of its
orbital motion? After all, if I walk around in circles, without trying
to pirouette on my toes, my face will be pointing straight ahead in
the direction I am walking all the time.
So, walking in a circle counterclockwise, without trying to pirouette,
my left shoulder always points to the center.
So I admit that your interpretation is a very natural one.
But as I've said, it turns out that you can't really use that
interpretation in astronomy. It is misleading and confusing, even
though it seems sensible. Because the Moon's rotation when compared
with the stars is uniform and regular, while the orbital motion of the
Moon around the Earth involves larger angular displacements per unit
of time near perigee than near apogee. And this difference is visible
in the librations of the Moon.
So we have to use the interpretation that fits the facts more
accurately if we want a correct understanding.
We define the intrinsic rotation of a body as its rotation when using
the stars as an external reference - even when that body is not fixed
with respect to the stars, but in orbit around another body - because
then in the absence of a disturbing force, the rotation is usually
simple and uniform.
John Savard
palsing
> The moon has an orbital motion,it does not have an intrinsic rotation...
> It is not my business to indicate just what a modification this
> actually is but it is already an injustice in the extreme...
"I'm patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
- Edith Sitwell
Mike Collins
Let me repeat my earlier point.
On 19 Aug, 08:01, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are trying to describe the moon's orbital motion and its
> characteristic,not rotation.The moon's orbital circuit of the Earth is
> entirely independent of the Earth's rotation so your analogy,however
> quaint, actually expresses the opposite of what is intended.
You couldn't be more wrong. The moon's orbit is constantly being
modified by the Earth's rotation and vice versa.
The moon generates a tidal bulge on the Earth and it's oceans.
The Earth rotates faster than the moon's orbit and in the same
direction so the ocean's tidal bulge is speeded up by the Earth's
rotation which in turn speeds up the moon and moves it into a higher
orbit.
This process has been and still is being measured using the laser
reflectors placed on the moon by Apollo astronauts.
The reflector data shows that the moon is slowing the Eart's rotation
and that the Earth is widening the Moon's orbit.
You have no answer to this so you just ignore the facts and hope they
will go away.
You can't ignore the effects of tides on the Earth / Moon system. What
do you think causes tides? Where does the energy come from? How can
this energy be transferred from one body to the other without
affecting the orbit?
Try this thought experiment. Say to yourself "What if I am wrong and
everyone else in the world is right." Then open your mind, assume we
are right and see how everything falls into place. You will soon
realise how wrong-headed your views are.
I say again you are using a religious world - view to try to explain
scientific facts. You are also hampered by having no visual
imagination which makes it difficult for you to understand the
majority who don't have this handicap.
Without Newton's equations there would be no spaceflight.
If Einstein were wrong about energy and mass equivalence there would
be no nuclear bombs.
Do you ignore these facts as well?
Painius
"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
news:89d4996a-bf2d-40f9...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 12:17 am, Bob Myers <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On 8/16/2010 2:42 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > So,stick with your rotating moon,it ain't astronomy, it ain't science
> > and I sure do not know what it is.
>
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
Truth is, you remind me of a great astronomer, Kepler...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler
Try to imagine a man who is SO certain that the Solar system
was "perfect", especially that the orbits of the planets had to
be "perfect" circles, HAD TO BE(!), and then to find by looking
at Tycho Brahe's observation notes that NO(!), the planetary
orbits are NOT perfect circles, but instead they are ELLIPSES !
They are ELLIPSES ! OH, NO ! My GOD, they are not perfect
circles ! THIS CANNOT BE -- OH ! WOE IS ME !
Even though at that time Kepler was giving (and selling) very
unscientific astrology readings to his friends and acquaintances
(you gotta eat), Kepler turned out to be scientist enough to
overcome his astrobigotry, his prejudice toward "perfection",
and he finally accepted the truth, that planetary orbits are NOT
perfect circles, but instead planets orbit the Sun on the ellipse
track. And Kepler went down in history for it. Kepler is, in fact
considered one of the greatest astronomers of all time.
Kepler overcame his personal beliefs and accepted the TRUTH.
So should you.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "If there were no God, then there would
be no atheists." > G. K. Chesterton
oriel36
wrote:
> On 19 Aug, 18:20, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me repeat my earlier point.
>
> On 19 Aug, 08:01, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You are trying to describe the moon's orbital motion and its
> > characteristic,not rotation.The moon's orbital circuit of the Earth is
> > entirely independent of the Earth's rotation so your analogy,however
> > quaint, actually expresses the opposite of what is intended.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong. The moon's orbit is constantly being
> modified by the Earth's rotation and vice versa.
> The moon generates a tidal bulge on the Earth and it's oceans.
> The Earth rotates faster than the moon's orbit and in the same
> direction so the ocean's tidal bulge is speeded up by the Earth's
> rotation which in turn speeds up the moon and moves it into a higher
> orbit.
> This process has been and still is being measured using the laser
> reflectors placed on the moon by Apollo astronauts.
>
Disrespectful,although I have used repetitive explanations before
(however distasteful),I have never copied and pasted a previous
response as you have just done.It is already bad enough that there is
a growing casualness about this important topic whereas astronomers
would normally be engrossed is the line of reasoning which uses the
moon's lunar orbital cycle around the Earth to compare with the
Earth's orbital cycle around the Sun by concentrating on the
correlation between the orbital period and the orbital daylight/
darkness cycle common to both.
The Earth turns slowly through 360 degrees to the central Sun at a
point that is always 23 1/2 degrees perpendicular to the polar
coordinates and as it moves along its orbital circumference so that
the single orbital daylight/darkness cycle which matches its orbital
period can be compared with the moon's daylight/darkness cycle which
has a different orbital behavior as it makes a circuit of the Earth.
> The reflector data shows that the moon is slowing the Eart's rotation
> and that the Earth is widening the Moon's orbit.
>
> You have no answer to this so you just ignore the facts and hope they
> will go away.
>
To isolate the Earth's daily rotation,even in principle,will be an
enormously complicated task as it has never been done.
>
> Try this thought experiment. Say to yourself "What if I am wrong and
> everyone else in the world is right." Then open your mind, assume we
> are right and see how everything falls into place. You will soon
> realise how wrong-headed your views are.
>
No thanks,I can look out at the moon,see that it has no intrinsic
rotation and then can go on to compare the moon's orbital circuit
about the Earth with the Earth's orbital circuit around the Sun.In
short,if you believe that the moon rotates to the Earth,it is
impossible to comprehend how the Earth orbitally turns to the central
Sun thereby causing the seasons when allied with daily rotation.
There is no defense mentality,simply a new way to look at things using
modern imaging and if all you can believe is the moon 'rotates' then
good for you,at least you are vocal about it.For those who recognize
the monthly lunar cycle as an orbital trait,well there is so much work
to do that they simply will not have the time to dwell on old or bad
habits for too long,all the same,seeing lunar rotation where there is
none is pretty horrifying for all sorts of basic reasons.
> I say again you are using a religious world - view to try to explain
> scientific facts. You are also hampered by having no visual
> imagination which makes it difficult for you to understand the
> majority who don't have this handicap.
>
I rarely mention those things which some understand as God,religion or
faith or whatever level they comprehend something greater than
themselves,as a Christian,it is simply an integral part of my faith
even if the story handed down to this era is pretty much propaganda
designed to put denominational Christianity is the worst light and in
some ways the Church deserves it,even a person who loves Church
services and the good people in that community.I do watch the
empiricist flail around trying to promote the idea of religion or
faith as superstition but people are supposed to know better as they
get older and encounter what those of faith have achieved,science is
no different.A person who believes in 'time travel' in any shape or
form can't be religious as humans can't control time and it shows a
distinct respect for temporal forms in context of creation like a drop
of water meshes with an ocean yet is not an ocean.
There is so much to say here it is much easier to say as little as
possible insofar as people see their own loss of individuality and
courage that faith always allows,replaced by 'scientific method'
mantras which conceal more than they reveal.
> Without Newton's equations there would be no spaceflight.
Don't be ridiculous,all Newton did was take a shortcut by building on
the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec effectively short circuiting any
productive applications empiricism had,the ability to use analogies to
extract useful hints that flow between astronomy and terrestrial
sciences stopped dead regardless of how it must have looked
originally.I made it my business to retain the ability to use
analogies as at experimental level but what Newton did was greedy in
the extreme by distorting the great achievements of the astronomers
engaged in planetary dynamics since Copernicus.
You don't want to hear that all of you are not just Newton's equal but
have the capacity to right the distortions he introduced simply by
using modern imaging and are therefore far superior to all that came
before you.Even I concede many were just trying to do their best with
the information they had but because of the way the thing was
originally set up,the whole thing was going to run out of steam as it
has lately.
So,have you got it fairly straight that this is as much about the
Earth's orbital behavior as it is the moon's and although I may not
have to consider it as a debate,it is likely other definitely will and
that is good for astronomy.
oriel36
> My Dearest Gerald Kelleher (Oriel36),
>
To understand what Kepler did,it is an imperative to know the
reasoning which led to planetary dynamics and not a single person here
affirms that retrogrades here an illusion caused by the Earth's
orbital motion in the common orbits of the planets around the central
Sun the main argument for the orbital motion of the Earth that was
first proposed by Copernicus, -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
The concept is so easy to understand with modern imaging that nobody
in their right mind could argue that retrogrades could be resolved any
other way than the illusion they are but empiricists found it -
"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
I once considered that the false approach towards retrograde
resolution by Newton in using a hypothetical observer on the Sun was
the most obvious astronomical error possible but this has changed,the
lunar cycle and its interpretation is even more basic and unlike the
more complicated reasoning which results in the ins and outs of
planetary dynamics,I have no intention of pushing the orbital trait of
the moon in dispensing with the ridiculous idea of intrinsic lunar
rotation.
In short,you are on your own for a change.
Androcles
"Painius" <starswi...@maol.com> wrote in message
news:4c6eb02d$0$15735$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
PPS: "If there were no Santa, then there would
be no children." > St. N. Klaus
Androcles
"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9161a4de-7eb0-4f45...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
=============================================
An observer on the Moon sees the Sun cross his sky and the Earth
never change its position (much). In short, you are a raving lunatic.
palsing
> The Earth turns slowly through 360 degrees to the central Sun...
More correctly, "with respect to" the central sun... and so it does,
but of course, that broom stick axis of yours constantly points to a
spot near Polaris, so it is not really turning at all during its
orbit.. with respect to the fixed stars. As always, it is a matter of
perspective.
Also as always, you have no clue about frames of reference... or at
least you are pretending not to have a clue... because no one could
really that stupid... could they?
"Fiction writing is great, you can make up almost anything."
- Ivana Trump
Quadibloc
> The concept is so easy to understand with modern imaging that nobody
> in their right mind could argue that retrogrades could be resolved any
> other way than the illusion they are but empiricists found it -
>
> "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
And to us, this makes no sense - Newton is saying that retrogrades are
illusions, since in reality the planets move only in one direction
around the Sun, but the Earth's motion is what makes us see them.
Exactly as you are saying.
We can't see whatever it is you are reading into Newton's statement,
nor do we understand why a "hypothetical observer" on the Sun is a big
deal.
John Savard
palsing
> ...not a single person here
> affirms that retrogrades here an illusion caused by the Earth's
> orbital motion in the common orbits of the planets around the central
> Sun...
Once again you are talking like a complete Idiot. EVERYONE knows this,
my young grandchildren know this, and certainly Newton knew this,
which is why his statement makes so much sense. All he was saying is
that from the sun you would see no planetary retrograde motion because
it is only an illusion as viewed from Earth...
"We cast away priceless time in dreams, born of imagination, fed upon
illusion, and put to death by reality."
- Judy Garland
Chris.B
token ballast. If he should find that the stars are passing across
his dying vision, as the last remaining oxygen runs out, then the
journey will not have been completely wasted. Terminator, anyone?
"You can take an ass to knowledge but you cannot make him think."
-Chris.B
oriel36
> happy days and...
> starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth
>
> P.S.: "If there were no God, then there would
> be no atheists." > G. K. Chesterton
>
> P.P.S.: http://astronomy.painellsworth.net
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
It is a shame you pulled your next response as all that is left are
the nuisances,not that people are entitled to their views but
interpretative astronomy doesn't compete with with the tendency to
introduce fiction when facts are determined in a very precise way and
especially the resolution for retrogrades.
The astronomers who looked at retrogrades from a geostationary point
of view thought retrogrades were intrinsic to the motion of the
planets themselves whereas Copernicus,by introducing the Earth's
orbital motion between Mars and Venus simply obliterated the idea of
retrogrades as anything but an illusion hence the shift from
geocentric perspectives to those based on planetary dynamics.
In context of what Newton tried to do was diminish the actual
resolution for retrogrades by creating an absolute space/hypothetical
observer on the Sun thereby promoting the idea of modelling from
direct observations and everyone here should be ashamed of themselves
for supporting that greedy person who did so much damage without his
followers actually knowing or caring how he did it -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the
apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Principia
None of you appear to have a sense of what he is doing,the
resignation that salvation is through his modelling agenda through
forces and the common Ra/Dec framework holding it all together.Of
course,for a people who conclude the moon is rotating will hardly
register anything worthwhile let alone Isaac's elaborate scheme and
that is what makes things so dismal,if you can find an excuse to
vandalize what the great astronomers did in accounting for retrogrades
as an illusion caused by the Earth's motion you reap what you sow when
it comes to the lunar daylight/darkness cycle and the inability to
explain it correctly.
People should not play fast and loose with facts, and that is why the
nuisances are best left to their own devices,but it does not account
for why good people do not actively become engaged in these debates
which cover some of humanity's greatest intellectual achievements and
what caused the destruction of the astronomical merit system by the
vandalism introduced into astronomy through the greed of the modelling/
predictions agendas.
Androcles
=================================================
As with all clowns, Kellerher, you've succeeded in your objective of getting
your entire audience laughing at you.
http://www.bigtoprvpark.com/images/clown_coloring.jpg
What everyone is wondering is if your feet really are big enough to fit
those shoes.
HVAC
"Painius" <starswi...@maol.com> wrote in message
news:4c6eb02d$0$15735$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> unscientific astrology readings to his friends and acquaintances
> (you gotta eat), Kepler turned out to be scientist enough to
> overcome his astrobigotry, his prejudice toward "perfection",
> and he finally accepted the truth, that planetary orbits are NOT
> perfect circles, but instead planets orbit the Sun on the ellipse
> track. And Kepler went down in history for it. Kepler is, in fact
> considered one of the greatest astronomers of all time.
>
> Kepler overcame his personal beliefs and accepted the TRUTH.
>
> So should you.
And of course... So should YOU.
1) The moon is a moon, not a planet.
2) Space is not 'ether'.
3) The big bang is quite well proven.
4) Red-shift is not an illusion.
5) No one can astrally project themselves.
(If they could, you would have done my test)
--
Faith is believing what you know ain't so" -Mark Twain
Martin Nicholson
palsing
> ... it does not account
> for why good people do not actively become engaged in these debates
> which cover some of humanity's greatest intellectual achievements...
You know perfectly well why there is virtually no one who can engage
you in an intelligent dialog... your ideas and interpretations are in
direct conflict with history's greatest astronomers, both dead and
alive, and to my knowledge you have never, ever given an inch to
anyone who tries to straighten you out, they somehow become "bad"
people. You call that a debate?
No, 'debate' is not in your vocabulary. You never answer the easy
questions posed to you, the ones that anyone can answer, because
answering them would only unravel your tenuous theories. Rather, you
completely ignore any statements that might possibly trip you up. No
sense taking any chances, eh?
Actually, you are really very good at what you do. Like every good
troll, you are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or
otherwise), you cannot be negotiated with, and you cannot be reasoned
with. To the rest of the world you are possibly the dumbest guy on the
face of the Earth, but we know better, don't we?
Goodbye now, you big faker...
Androcles
"Martin Nicholson" <martin_pier...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8ef33ea3-f31c-4d0e...@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
| Why are people still feeding the Kelleher troll?
|
or too stupid to look up? Perhaps he's never owned a telescope with a
clock-driven equatorial mount... And then again, well-meaning folk want to
straighten his crazy arse out. Does that answer your question?
Androcles
"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i4mohl$g7j$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
|
| "Painius" <starswi...@maol.com> wrote in message
| news:4c6eb02d$0$15735$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
| >
| > Even though at that time Kepler was giving (and selling) very
| > unscientific astrology readings to his friends and acquaintances
| > (you gotta eat), Kepler turned out to be scientist enough to
| > overcome his astrobigotry, his prejudice toward "perfection",
| > and he finally accepted the truth, that planetary orbits are NOT
| > perfect circles, but instead planets orbit the Sun on the ellipse
| > track. And Kepler went down in history for it. Kepler is, in fact
| > considered one of the greatest astronomers of all time.
| >
| > Kepler overcame his personal beliefs and accepted the TRUTH.
| >
| > So should you.
|
| And of course... So should YOU.
|
| 1) The moon is a moon, not a planet.
Debatable. It wouldn't have to be very much bigger to qualify as a planet.
Jupiter's moon Ganymede, and it is larger by volume than the smallest
planet, Mercury, although only half as massive.
| 2) Space is not 'ether'.
True.
|
| 3) The big bang is quite well proven.
|
Bullshit.
| 4) Red-shift is not an illusion.
Nor is blue shift and there is just as much of it.
|
| 5) No one can astrally project themselves.
| (If they could, you would have done my test)
|
|
|
|
| --
| Faith is believing what you know ain't so" -Mark Twain
Which is why the big bonk isn't proven at all, despite your faith. You
should listen to Sam Clemens.
oriel36
Ah,you have the choice to look up at the moon for romantic reasons or
to just enjoy it but leave room for astronomers to look out at the
moon and see that it is our only natural satellite so that as it makes
a circuit of the Earth,it is now moving in a direction where the Earth
will soon be between it and the central Sun thereby illuminating its
full face,the side that keeps the same side to us as a characteristic
of its orbital motion.It needs no telescope,no special device and is
probably the one thing we share with the ancient astronomers who
graced this planet in that it does orbit the Earth as they would have
seen it and it has no intrinsic rotation.
The tide always turns and maybe the moon will supply something to that
change in men's reasoning when we return to our senses and look on
these things as men again.
Painius
"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
news:9161a4de-7eb0-4f45...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Not really.
Suppose the Moon were to, instead of constantly face the Earth,
constantly show the same face to the Sun. Astronomers might
say that the Moon's rotational period is now exactly the same as
its orbital period around the Sun... about one year.
Whatever you might view the Moon's rotation if this were to
happen, you would not be able to get around the obvious fact
that the Moon's spin speed had changed.
From zero?
To zero?
What?
Painius
"palsing" <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
news:83f8d893-ff04-472a...@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> . . .
> "We cast away priceless time in dreams, born of imagination, fed upon
> illusion, and put to death by reality."
> - Judy Garland
It's a very good thing that scientists do not, as a rule,
subscribe to Garland's "realization". If they did, they
would all kill themselves like Judy did.
Bless her pea-pickin' heart.
Painius
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote...
in message news:HYybo.70671$GW1.60518@hurricane...
Not for anything, but i think it's the other way around...
"If there were no children, then there would be no Santa."
> St. Nick
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "You never find yourself until you face the truth."
> Pearl Bailey
Painius
"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote...
in message news:i4mohl$g7j$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
> "Painius" <starswi...@maol.com> wrote in message
> news:4c6eb02d$0$15735$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>
>> Even though at that time Kepler was giving (and selling) very
>> unscientific astrology readings to his friends and acquaintances
>> (you gotta eat), Kepler turned out to be scientist enough to
>> overcome his astrobigotry, his prejudice toward "perfection",
>> and he finally accepted the truth, that planetary orbits are NOT
>> perfect circles, but instead planets orbit the Sun on the ellipse
>> track. And Kepler went down in history for it. Kepler is, in fact
>> considered one of the greatest astronomers of all time.
>>
>> Kepler overcame his personal beliefs and accepted the TRUTH.
>>
>> So should you.
>
> And of course... So should YOU.
>
> 1) The moon is a moon, not a planet.
Debatable.
> 2) Space is not 'ether'.
Correct. It is the sub-Planck energy domain (SPED).
> 3) The big bang is quite well proven.
BS. It is a well-received theory. More evidence that you
are not even *close* to being a scientist.
> 4) Red-shift is not an illusion.
Maybe... maybe not. This, too, is debatable.
> 5) No one can astrally project themselves.
> (If they could, you would have done my test)
Contrary to your popular belief (faith), we are not here to
entertain you.
To me, "astral travel" is merely a mental exercise that i
use to perform introspective experiments. You should try
it. But be careful, it might transform you.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "You never find yourself until you face the truth."
> Pearl Bailey
P.P.S.: http://astronomy.painellsworth.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
Painius
"Martin Nicholson" <martin_pier...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote...
in message
news:8ef33ea3-f31c-4d0e...@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Why are people still feeding the Kelleher troll?
Life's a beach, and then you die.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "You never find yourself until you face the truth."
> Pearl Bailey
P.P.S.: http://astronomy.painellsworth.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
Quadibloc
> "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
. .
> > "We cast away priceless time in dreams, born of imagination, fed upon
> > illusion, and put to death by reality."
> > - Judy Garland
> It's a very good thing that scientists do not, as a rule,
> subscribe to Garland's "realization". If they did, they
> would all kill themselves like Judy did.
She took her usual dosage only of sleeping pills, after having not
used them for a while, thus having lost tolerance. Given that, her
death is generally believed to have been an accident.
John Savard
Androcles
| My Dearest Androcles,
Oh boy, do you have THAT wrong!
I'm the least dearest you'll ever come across!
You mean to tell me that it is the way around?
If there were no atheists there would be no god?
Good thing that I exist, then, keeping the world safe from idiotic bigotry.
Allah Akbar! Pakistan is flooded, Praise be to Allah!
"I think, therefore I am." -- Rene Descartes
Baaa... god is great... baaa... Do sheep think? Do ewe, my deer
Pain-in-arse?
Quadibloc
> Suppose the Moon were to, instead of constantly face the Earth,
> constantly show the same face to the Sun. Astronomers might
> say that the Moon's rotational period is now exactly the same as
> its orbital period around the Sun... about one year.
>
> Whatever you might view the Moon's rotation if this were to
> happen, you would not be able to get around the obvious fact
> that the Moon's spin speed had changed.
>
> From zero?
>
> To zero?
>
> What?
Actually, it is clear what Gerald and the astronomers would say.
Gerald would say that the orbital period of the Moon had changed
from...
no rotation to
29 1/2 days (retrograde orbit)
and conventional astronomers would say that the orbital period of the
Moon had changed from
27 1/3 days to
365 1/4 days
because, as far as Gerald is concerned, the rotational period of a
body is *always* referenced to the primary around which that body
orbits.
Thus, the rotational period of the Earth is
24 hours
and not
23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds
So Gerald is being completely consistent. The trouble is that the
Equation of Time and libration prove that he is consistently wrong;
the Solar System doesn't work by mechanical linkages.
John Savard
Painius
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote...
in message news:sHCbo.28791$UD.9140@hurricane...
> "HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i4mohl$g7j$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
> | "Painius" <starswi...@maol.com> wrote in message
> | news:4c6eb02d$0$15735$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> | >
> | > Even though at that time Kepler was giving (and selling) very
> | > unscientific astrology readings to his friends and acquaintances
> | > (you gotta eat), Kepler turned out to be scientist enough to
> | > overcome his astrobigotry, his prejudice toward "perfection",
> | > and he finally accepted the truth, that planetary orbits are NOT
> | > perfect circles, but instead planets orbit the Sun on the ellipse
> | > track. And Kepler went down in history for it. Kepler is, in fact
> | > considered one of the greatest astronomers of all time.
> | >
> | > Kepler overcame his personal beliefs and accepted the TRUTH.
> | >
> | > So should you.
> |
> | And of course... So should YOU.
> |
> | 1) The moon is a moon, not a planet.
>
> Debatable. It wouldn't have to be very much bigger to qualify as a planet.
> Jupiter's moon Ganymede, and it is larger by volume than the smallest
> planet, Mercury, although only half as massive.
Thank you. And i am only agreeing with Asimov, who gave
many good points as to why the Moon should be reclassified
as a full-fledged planet in its own right...
http://ebooksgolden.com/bb_Selene_toc.html
> | 2) Space is not 'ether'.
>
> True.
Yes, true.
> | 3) The big bang is quite well proven.
>
> Bullshit.
Yes, bullshit. It is a theory, and if the redshift of faraway
galaxies can be shown to be illusory, then there is no
expanding Universe and, therefore, no need for an initial
Big Bang origin theory. Also, no need for "dark energy".
That alone will not be able to get through the spewing of
cheap beer as astronomers squeal about how the latest
"find" *proves* relativity's cosmo constant...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7787461.stm
More "fitting the observations to the theory"?
> | 4) Red-shift is not an illusion.
>
> Nor is blue shift and there is just as much of it.
Precisely my point. The entire Universe should be like the
flip of a coin in this respect. There is a fifty-fifty chance
that any of the billions of galaxies would be either coming
toward us or be moving away from us. So I consider the
redshift of faraway galaxies to be an illusion. Proving this
is problematic.
> | 5) No one can astrally project themselves.
> | (If they could, you would have done my test)
> |
> | --
> | Faith is believing what you know ain't so" -Mark Twain
>
> Which is why the big bonk isn't proven at all, despite your faith. You
> should listen to Sam Clemens.
B I N G O !
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "You never find yourself until you face the truth."
> Pearl Bailey
P.P.S.: http://astronomy.painellsworth.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
Quadibloc
wrote:
> "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i4mohl$g7j$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
> | 1) The moon is a moon, not a planet.
>
> Debatable. It wouldn't have to be very much bigger to qualify as a planet.
> Jupiter's moon Ganymede, and it is larger by volume than the smallest
> planet, Mercury, although only half as massive.
The only way the Moon could qualify as a planet is if it became bigger
than the Earth, so that the Earth stopped being a planet and started
being a moon. Planetary status is not only dependent on size, it
depends on whether a body orbits the Sun, or instead orbits one of the
planets in addition to partaking in that planet's orbital motion.
Of course, a phrase like "partaking in that planet's orbital motion"
doesn't really represent the modern reality - the Moon feels the Sun's
gravity directly, and so it can be viewed as orbiting the Sun with
perturbations caused by the Earth. But typically people view the
Moon's motion in the frame of reference of the Earth-Moon system
barycenter.
In fact, that phrase is the sort of thing Oriel might say. So his way
of thinking about the planets isn't as completely dead as some might
think.
John Savard
Painius
"palsing" <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
news:214d1342-2e40-4b4d...@s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> . . .
> "Fiction writing is great, you can make up almost anything."
> - Ivana Trump
Trump is wrong. Fiction writing is damn hard !
To sell, fiction actually has to more believable than truth.
Painius
news:4c6f2041$0$4848$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> My dearest Palsing,
> . . . To sell, fiction actually has to more believable than truth.
Oops...
To sell, fiction actually has to BE more believable than truth.
Androcles
| My Dearest Martin Nicholson,
Aww... I thought I was your dearest... now I'm hurt, you fickle boy. I shall
pout now.
Androcles
| My Dearest Androcles,
Don't come that bullshit with me, you said Martin Nichelson was
your dearest. You are a two-timing deer, Pain-in-arse. Doh! -- oops -- Doe!
You are welcome, deer.
| > | 2) Space is not 'ether'.
| >
| > True.
|
| Yes, true.
|
| > | 3) The big bang is quite well proven.
| >
| > Bullshit.
|
| Yes, bullshit. It is a theory, and if the redshift of faraway
| galaxies can be shown to be illusory, then there is no
| expanding Universe and, therefore, no need for an initial
| Big Bang origin theory. Also, no need for "dark energy".
| That alone will not be able to get through the spewing of
| cheap beer as astronomers squeal about how the latest
| "find" *proves* relativity's cosmo constant...
|
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7787461.stm
|
| More "fitting the observations to the theory"?
Einstein said it first. "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the
facts."
Here is a perfect example of fact changing.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
|
| > | 4) Red-shift is not an illusion.
| >
| > Nor is blue shift and there is just as much of it.
|
| Precisely my point. The entire Universe should be like the
| flip of a coin in this respect. There is a fifty-fifty chance
| that any of the billions of galaxies would be either coming
| toward us or be moving away from us. So I consider the
| redshift of faraway galaxies to be an illusion. Proving this
| is problematic.
Without data any theory is plausible. So invent the data to suit the theory.
Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena, in that order. Too many dingbats want to make a name for
themselves by explaining black holes, not investigating them and then asking
others to go looking for them. Such dingbats have posh titles
such as "Professor" Stephen Hawking, professional dingbat, and "Dr." Albert
Einstein, professional con-artist and general shithead.
|
| > | 5) No one can astrally project themselves.
| > | (If they could, you would have done my test)
| > |
| > | --
| > | Faith is believing what you know ain't so" -Mark Twain
| >
| > Which is why the big bonk isn't proven at all, despite your faith. You
| > should listen to Sam Clemens.
|
| B I N G O !
|
| happy days and...
| starry starry nights!
|
| --
| Indelibly yours,
| Paine Ellsworth
|
| P.S.: "You never find yourself until you face the truth."
| > Pearl Bailey
Truth is whatever you believe it to be.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000A%26A...356L..53B
Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena, in that order.
http://www.britastro.org/vss/her%20v592_small.gif
Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena, in that order.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena, in that order.
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena, in that order.
I'll stick with 1+1 = 2.
Androcles
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:51c0c772-3116-4133...@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 20, 3:44 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
wrote:
> "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i4mohl$g7j$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
> | 1) The moon is a moon, not a planet.
>
> Debatable. It wouldn't have to be very much bigger to qualify as a planet.
> Jupiter's moon Ganymede, and it is larger by volume than the smallest
> planet, Mercury, although only half as massive.
The only way the Moon could qualify as a planet is if it became bigger
than the Earth, so that the Earth stopped being a planet and started
being a moon. Planetary status is not only dependent on size, it
depends on whether a body orbits the Sun, or instead orbits one of the
planets in addition to partaking in that planet's orbital motion.
===========================================
The Moon orbits the Sun and the Moon's orbit around the Sun is
everywhere concave. It only needs to become big enough to have
a barycentre that is above the surface of the Earth to be a true planet.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/barycentre.gif
Notice that the orange ball moves around the same barycentre as the
illuminated black/white planet.
============================================
Of course, a phrase like "partaking in that planet's orbital motion"
doesn't really represent the modern reality - the Moon feels the Sun's
gravity directly, and so it can be viewed as orbiting the Sun with
perturbations caused by the Earth.
============================================
Of course.
============================================
But typically people view the
Moon's motion in the frame of reference of the Earth-Moon system
barycenter.
In fact, that phrase is the sort of thing Oriel might say. So his way
of thinking about the planets isn't as completely dead as some might
think.
============================================
You and I can switch frames of reference at will. We can visualise
the Earth from the Moon, we can visualize the Earth from the Sun,
we can visualise the Moon from the Sun.
Anyone can visualize the Moon and Sun from the Earth by looking
up.
The dingbat Kellerher cannot do all that, he can only visualise
from Kellerher and he is the centre of the Universe. He is egocentric.
If I were a professional psychiatrist he'd interest me, but I'm not
and he doesn't. Nevertheless I am curious about his malady, as any
scientist would be. Unfortunately I have no training in psychiatry
and no plans to take a course in the subject, so I will shelve my
curiousity. There is too little life left for me to pursue what I
perceive to be unproductive. I cannot help him, I can only help you.
Take an interest in archaeology:
http://www.mythicalireland.com/ancientsites/knowth/calendarstone.html
Thad Floryan
> Why are people still feeding the Kelleher troll?
Because they're lonely wanker sheeple following the lead
of Senior Sycophant and Major Minion Senile Sam?
Sam Wormley
> These are holocaust conditions Sam,the hostility is such that it does
> not surface as explicit hatred to astronomy or more importantly,to
> human reasoning itself,but there must be some sort of satisfaction in
> doing something repulsive for no good reason than nobody objects for
> why else would people reject a conclusion that the moon does not
> rotate when it can be clearly seen not to.
It is simple Gerald, the moon rotates with respect to the stars, the
sun and the other planets.
oriel36
Not so fast Sam,the current explanation is that the moon has a
rotation as it makes its monthly circuit of the Earth and its lunar
daylight/darkness cycle is coincident with its orbital period,the
correct interpretation is that the moon has no intrinsic rotation as
can be observed by anyone and can be imitated by walking around a
central object to match the observation with the conclusion.
The Earth has also a single daylight/darkness cycle coincident with
its orbital period but unlike the moon which keeps the same side to
the Earth in its orbital cycle,the Earth slowly turns through 360
degrees to the central Sun,not from axis which runs from North to
South poles but at 23 1/2 degree perpendicular to the polar
coordinates,in short,there are two axes of rotation needed to explain
the planet's two daylight/darkness cycles,the daily cycle of day and
night and the separate cycle experience at the poles as 6 months of
darkness followed by 6 months of daylight.
So,it is not just getting into the topic of the lunar cycle and the
orbital behavior of the moon,it is also the Earth's orbital motion
allied with its daily rotation.The casualness with which this topic is
treated is pretty intolerable at the moment,I could reckon on the
worthless reactions from the usual nuisances but it still does not
account for why people do not object to the ridiculous conclusion that
the moon has an intrinsic rotation when it can be plainly seen to have
none.