Re: Good Article on Orbital Dynamics

oriel36 <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:07035d8e-5d67-4bb0-a91d-d644ec9a73dc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Feb 5, 8:02 pm, Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com> wrote:
oriel36 <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:7bafd921-e4c8-4690-b715-04
90d08dcfc3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:







On 4 Feb, 22:03, Agent Smith
<agent-sm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1230dc2a-5334-4123-9b54-8a
2dabc01...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On 4 Feb, 01:12, Agent Smith
<agent-sm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's from last month's issue of American Scientist.

http://tinyurl.com/2w4h5a

Toward the end of the article, that author says that the
configuration of extrasolar planets aroung the star 55 Cancri
has a region of stable orbits

that will allows a planet to exist in the habitable zone around
it's sun, where the temperature is just right for liquid water
to exist. Since the
whole point of the article is that solar systems are "full,"
ie. that all stable orbits are typically inhabited, the author
is clearly suggesting that the chances are quite good of
actually finding a planet in that region, eventually.

The first sentence in that article was certainly not written by
anyone who knows Kepler's work or indeed that of the
pre-Copernican or heliocentric astronomers -

"In 1605, Johannes Kepler discovered that the orbits of the
planets are ellipses rather than combinations of circles, as
astronomers had assumed since antiquity."

Care to correct it ?.

The geocentric astronomers  posited the Equant for the Keplerian
refinement whereas epicycles were employed to resolve the main
Copernican argument based on retrogrades -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils
[spiris], leading the individual planets into their respective
orbits [orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the
period of time shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the
same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see
looped towards the centre,with one extra, making nine times,
while at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen
times "  Kepler  referi
ng
to diagra
m
on page 86 -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

It is amazing that there is an overlooked orbital component to
the Earth's motion,which can visibly be extracted from the
motions of the Equatorial rings of Uranus yet nobody wants to
touch it -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_
2005.jpg

The change in orientation of the rings with respect to the
central Sun is 100 % certain along with the nature of the change
in accordance with Keplerian precepts.Before you ponder other
solar systems perhaps it is much better to adding the major
orbital component to our own planet and specifically replacing
the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt with the explicitly
observationbal orbital change.

The moon librates on a much shorter period than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3ryt9fBOBE-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The new orbital component based on referencing orbital motion
against the Sun is too magnificent a motion to ignore.yet  you have
no feel for it -

http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn12529/dn12529-1_
800.
jpg

The  change in the Equatorial rings with respect to the Sun is in
accordance with Keplerian orbital geometry hence it is quite
seperate to axial rotation/orientation.The application of the same
principle to the Earth's orbital motion leads to a simple working
principle that a location will turn through 360 degrees with
respect to the Sun over the course of an annual orbit.

I would have expected an MIT engineer to intepret the images
correctly but judging from the youtube sequence you responded
with,obviously you have not.The addition of a new orbital component
 is a major departure

from the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial/Equatorial inclination
 and unfortunately,for whatever reasons,nobody in the entire
newsgroups are up to the challenge even with sequential imaging of
another planet allied with graphics demonstrates its existence
explicitly,not even an inference required,but a clear and
unambiguous observation.

The problem is that, with an 84 year period, Uranus moves so slowly
along the course of its orbit that the data comes in at a trickle.
There is a slight change oscillation of the rings' inclination, with
a one year period, due to the motion of the earth, but this is not
the 360 degree rotation you're talking about.


What !,do you wish me to treat you like a child and show you graphics
of how the orbital orientation changes through 360 degrees with
respect to the Sun as an orbital component -

http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap13/FG13_06.jpg

Or do you want to be treated like a man and discuss how the change in
the orbital orientation denoted by the orbital longitude beacon of the
Equatorial rings is in accordance with Keplerian orbital geometry -

http://asymptotia.com/wp-images/2007/08/uranus_rings.jpg



To make a movie out of just five frames, gathered at a rate of one
per year, you have to kludge the data pretty bad, which I expect
would cause such a film to lose most of its charm.  However, if you
think that the project can be done, I urge you to do it, if for no
other reason than to see what happens.  There's a virtually infinite
amount of available work, appropriate for amateur astronomers, and
having found your very personal, favorite project, nobody else can
ever respect it as profoundly as you do.


An actual motion a person can see,it is even plainer than axial
rotation and look at that ill-considered and dull mess you just
wrote.I am not trying to convince you of anything,the sequence of
images is enough as far as I know but it may highlight how little you
know about orbital motion and especially that gorgeous motion which is
responsible for variations in daylight/darkness North and South of the
Equator and variations in the noon cycle.

I do not need to tell you how small you look,you manage to do it all
on your own,may be cowardice,may be incapacity,the fact is that you do
not see the motion apart from axial rotation/orientation and that is
that.



Even if you have a day job, so severely restricting the amount of
work you can do, that it will take your entire lifetime to complete
the task, I still encourage you to do it.  Depending on how old you
are, at a rate

of one frame per year, you should still get several new frames during
the rest of your time on earth.  You can't finish it, but by the time
you're gone, you may have taken a healthy chunk out of the project,
and it is moving so slowly that you'll still have plenty of time to
invent at least a few more tasks that nobody's ever thought of, for
instance, calculating when to take the snapshot so that the effects
of the earth's orbit are reduced.


How great my astronomical ancestors were to infer the heliocentric
arrangement including the lengthy periods of Jupiter and Saturn
without having to prove heliocentricity using full annual orbital
cycles .-

Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . . - 1632, Dialogue Concerning
the Two Chief World Systems




Would you please post a link to the parent page, from which those
photos are accessed, as well as its parent, and as far up the chain
as you need to go to get all details of all the Uranian photos at
that site, including especially the camera information.  I'm assuming
that it was taken with the Hubble, but these days, you can't be sure.


You are childish,a simple google image search would give you what you
want


I'm not going to deny that those aren't excellent pictures, but I
really don't understand what you mean by "the addition of a new
orbital component."  It sounds like you're using the language of
astrology, but I can't be sure.  

Any competent high school physics student should be able to infer
that the tilt of the Uranian rings will go through a 360 degree
cycle, as Uranus orbits the sun.

Tilting is an action,a dynamic.The axial orientation of Uranus is due
to axial rotation and nothing further can be said other than it points
in one fixed direction in space just as the Earth does.Axial rotation
cannot change the orientation of the axis/Equator with respect to the
Sun so you can set aside the old reliance on variable axial/equatorial
inclination.

You can actually see how axial rotation does nothing other than keep
Uranus pointing in one direction in space,I will even show you the
childish graphic you require -

http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap13/FG13_06.jpg

The change in the orientation of the rings does not look dramatic in
the graphic but seen using powerful and sequential imaging it
certainly is.If all you can manage is a 'tilting' Uranus then good for
you but the easier answer is to seperate orbital motion and treat the
change in orientation of a location to the Sun as a seperate issue.

I have to treat you like a high school pupil and ask you a simple
question,Over the course of an annual orbit does a location turn
slowly through 360 degrees with respect to the Sun ?.when you come to
the only possible conclusion be sure to teach others that there
beloved celestial sphere arc drawn from the central Sun through the
Earth to constellational geometry does not work -

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIT0.JPG







 The libration of the moon, however, was
completely new to me, and it totally blew my mind to see it.  I'm not
completely certain, but I suspect that it is the up and down tilt of
the moon, as seen from earth, as the moon rises and falls along the
inclination of its orbit.  Thus that is also "the addition of a new
orbital element."

Perhaps you're not necessarily infatuated by *any* "new orbital
element," but just by the ones exhibited by the two most remote gas
giants.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

TNewton hung his ballistic agenda on a framework created by Flamsteed
which keeps a location facing noon every 24 hours exactly in order to
justify axial and orbital motion to a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%
A9reo.
en.png

That reasoning belongs to mindless brutes with no feel for
astronomical accomplishments.You do not like the way a location
slowly turns through 360 degrees with respect to the Sun ,seperate to
axial rotation,then good for you.At least you now know how the
geocentrists felt when confronted with the original Copernican
reasoning,in fact I am being harsh on the geocentrists diue to the
strological framework and the reasoning behind you dismal approach.

How about those links I asked for?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Good Article on Orbital Dynamics
    ... it's sun, where the temperature is just right for liquid water to ... the Sun is too magnificent a motion to ignore.yet  you have no feel ... the course of an annual orbit. ... one year period, due to the motion of the earth, but this is not the 360 ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Gravity and Magnetism
    ... >> the Sun on planetary motion is dominant but to what degree the larger ... >> motion of the planets and the Sun about the galactic axis influences ... >> geology to astronomy in terms of rotations where one area compliments ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real lowdown on "Intelligent Design"
    ... It's the simplest thing in the world to give God the ... Sir Isaac, having established rules of motion, optics and written the ... "The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
  • Re: Center of galaxies
    ... All that Newtonian bull talk of the Earth around the Sun is the same ... primary planets, and of the ... The truth of the matter is that Keplerian motion and further into the ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: False correlation
    ... the same direction over the course of an annual orbit a planet must ... pointed to the Sun, the way the Moon always keeps one side pointed to ... If one thinks of that as the default case of "orbital motion", ... motion to put the axis back - to keep it pointing in one direction ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)