Re: The great Western adaption

oriel36 wrote:
I tell you what bizarre is,you cannot even manage to get the rate for
the axial rotation of the Earth right when most people who know nothing
of astronomy will tell you it is 24 hours exactly and they will be
correct

It is true that the principles which determine the correlation between
clocks and axial rotation are entirely unfamiliar to this generation
raised on celestial sphere geometry and the Ra/Dec system but it would
genuinely be bizarre if there was not one vocal objection to the now
dominant view of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.

I thank you; this is a clear statement of a place where you disagree
with the conventional view.

It certainly is true that every 24 hours, the Earth turns to face the
Sun, and this is a more useful figure than the 23 hour and 56 minute
one.

If you are, however, claiming that Tycho Brahe's model of the Solar
System, in which both the Sun and the Earth stood still, is the correct
model of reality, then I would have to disagree with you. We know that
the stars in the sky are not a painted backdrop, but they are instead
other Suns a vast distance away.

Not only, therefore, cannot the celestial sphere rotate around the
Earth once a day, it also cannot do so once a year.

The Earth does return to face in the *same direction* every 23 hours
and 56 minutes. That is a fact.

But that isn't the Earth's only motion; it also revolves around the
Sun.

At one time, it was thought that Mercury was tidally-locked in its
orbit, so that one face of it always was turned to the Sun.

The standard textbooks gave it a rotation period of 88 days, and a
revolution period of 88 days.

But it is more natural to think of Mercury as 'standing still' in that
case when it comes to rotation. The rotation on its axis every 88 days
can be thought of as a consequence of its movement around the Sun.

If we think of a revolution around a primary as "including" the
orbiting body facing the primary - as the Moon does always turn one
face to the Earth - then, if one removes the included part from Earth's
axial rotation, indeed, the Earth turns on its axis once every 24
hours.

Generally speaking, however, we don't think of revolution as
'including' rotation, because mathematical laws of adding angular
momenta linearly work more simply the other way - even if it seems less
natural.

Is it incapacity or is it indoctrination that makes you believe that
celestial sphere geometry can be used to explain the Earth's axial and
orbital motion ?

If we removed Earth's rotation around the Sun, we would not be able to
explain why the Earth doesn't fall into the Sun. The Earth is moving in
a circular path; absent the Sun's gravity, that does not constitute an
inertial frame of reference, although with that gravity, it is a
geodesic.

Taking the celestial sphere as stationary allows centrifugal force from
the circular motion of each planet to balance the Sun's gravity on each
planet. Why pick Earth - instead of Jupiter - to be still while the
celestial sphere moves?

You are being civil John and I appreciate that but right now I have to
find as many ways as possible to promote the great Western achievement
of the heliocentric system in an empirical era which believes that the
Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun -

No, the Sun around the Earth is not the same as the Earth around the
Sun. If Sun around Earth, then Jupiter around Earth.

And no stellar parallaxes.

So established astronomy does not believe that at all.

John Savard

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: non relativist / non aetherist reply
    ... > | the Earth axially rotates out of its orbital shadow) and you will ... > | the Sun. ... motion.You view the circumpolar motion of the stars in this light ... assumes axial rotation to be constant and equalises all the variables ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Why be a believer?
    ... > SECOND the Universe is incomprehensible in size and by comparison our World ... > Sun, Stars and Planets revolved around the Earth. ... > Acoran [Supreme] ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • Re: Earth rotation
    ... > as the Earth axially rotates to face the Sun directly. ... Sun*, which are in turn are based on observations of various ... > rotation was developed by brilliant people who assumed axial rotation ... based their timekeeping on the stars, not the sun (Newcomb, 1882). ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Earth rotation
    ... > as the Earth axially rotates to face the Sun directly. ... Sun*, which are in turn are based on observations of various ... > rotation was developed by brilliant people who assumed axial rotation ... based their timekeeping on the stars, not the sun (Newcomb, 1882). ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Kook warning, Oriel36
    ... > realise what Newton's bulltalk of the sun around the earth is the same ... The exact analogy in geology is ... the oblate shape of the Earth that the couple of gravity - rotation ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Quantcast