Re: The 3 minute 56 second illusion

On Jun 9, 9:56 pm, Morten Reistad <fi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <4b95156d-3f48-4b0c-a0f5-cb2ec8d5b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,





palsing  <pals...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:02 pm, Morten Reistad <fi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And why so many of them are attracted to astronomy, even if they
get it totally wrong even at the outset.

These basic frame of reference errors are very common among
students.

*************

I agree. The difference is that you can explain to the student why his
error is an error, and with patience and an able teacher, he will
quickly get it right.

Unfortunatley, this is not true of Gerald, he seems to have no
capacity to learn anything that might change the way he views the
universe. He feels that his intelligence is 'intuitive' and he rejects
empirical data and calls it irrelevant.

He seems to be stuck in a cargo cult style 24-hour grid. He frequently
uses the lat/lon 260 degree navigational grid as an argument-by-proxy
for using a 24 hour reference frame, and ignores that one is a time
and another is a set of angles.

He sort of answered the focault pendulum reference; with answer
of 24 hours sharp as rotational reference. Which can be disproved by
experiment.

So, he seems stuck in an "ideal solar" reference frame, and hasn't
gotten around to the problems with that, in that stars cannot rotate
around us without violating relativity in terms of speed, and that
intertial reference frames are inherently sidereal.


Ah,you are only a newbie and haven't dealt with what Newton's absolute/
relative time actually represents and how he uses the different and
flawed set of reference switching views of Flamsteed,you have to
watch that Isaac guy when he deals from the deck,in any case,Albert
and his buddies had a ball with that astrological framework -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html


I have seen lots of students balk at physics concepts, but rarely
this early in the curriculum.

-- mrr

Physics concepts = astrological concepts,how do you like that
equation !.

An astronomer takes the 69.17 miles at the Equator representing both 4
minutes of clock time and 1 degree of geographical separation aligning
with rotational characteristics and arrives at the correct
circumference of the Earth at any given latitude -

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html

69.17 miles multiplied by 360 (4 minutes = 1 degree) = 24901.2 miles
in 24 hours .

In any case,you are just another one among many,somebody who arrives
all bright and breezy with relativiity in tow and after a few posts
will marvel to find yourself an astrologer all along.Take a tip from
the senior astrologers here,stick with meteor impacts which may or may
not have happenedr the blob at the end of the universe thingies where
you can't be challenged and stay clear of planetary dynamics and
cyclical processes which are up close and personal.Then you will fit
right in.

Oh by the way,the world's authority in 'sidereal time ' here will
instruct you and all his underlings here on what the value actually
represents -

"Because the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at
any one place at midnight will be about four minutes later each night,
until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has
transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

There is where your 'frames of reference' leads,the inability to state
the 3 basic planetary facts correctly,the information contained in the
24 hour/360 degrees longitude meridians.









.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Experimental Detection of Universal Reference Frame
    ... >> The Principle of Relativity is invalid precisely on the ground that it ... >> declares all inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion to be ... >> physical effects without reference to any preferred reference frame. ... >> uniform velocity with respect to BCRF. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The 3 minute 56 second illusion
    ... He sort of answered the focault pendulum reference; ... So, he seems stuck in an "ideal solar" reference frame, and hasn't ... No, I am not versed in astrology, nor do I ... the speed of the earth rotation within a few hundreds of milliseconds ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: General Relativity question
    ... > the motion of a body is referred to a reference frame. ... called reference particles or observers. ... > In general the observers of a frame need not move freely. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: General Relativity question
    ... > the motion of a body is referred to a reference frame. ... called reference particles or observers. ... > In general the observers of a frame need not move freely. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the most plausible FTL/Hyper/Warp Drive that you come accross?
    ... the reference defined by cosmic background radiation could be used. ... It doesn't constitute a universal reference frame. ... IIUC the idea of using the CMBR as a universal reference frame is that since the CMBR gets steadily colder as time progresses from the BB, once we get ourselves into a state of motion where the observed CMBR in all directions is at the same temperature T; ... So two observers could synch their clocks by coming to rest WRT each other and the CMBR, boost as they liked for arbitrary times, then individually boost so that they each measured the CMBR T as constant over their fields of vision, then know their "relative absolute times" WRT each other so as to remove ambiguities in their common observations of a third phenomenon. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)