Re: Earth rotation

From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/21/04 

Date: 21 Jun 2004 10:12:02 -0700

Jonathan Silverlight <jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<sJHrhmn+rG1AFwXi@merseia.fsnet.co.uk>...
> In message <273f8e06.0406190216.4afda40b@posting.google.com>, Oriel36
> <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> writes
> >"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
> >news:<xcGAc.98474$YI6.685749@wagner.videotron.net>...
> >> "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:273f8e06.0406180842.45ba6f99@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> > Don , I give you a brief outline of why turning to physicists on this
> >> > matter is a hopeless cause and specifically on the matter of the
> >> > constant axial rotation of the Earth occuring within variable orbital
> >> > motion.
> >>
> >> Bzzzt. Angular momentum applies to *any* form of rotational
> >> motion, orbital, axial, or otherwise.
> >>
> >
> >You are fortunate that not many would be capable of handling the
> >astronomical data as it applies to the Earth's rotation,Flamsteed's
> >erroneous assumption and how that assumption found its way into the
> >Principia and subsequently Newton's derivation of Kepler's planetary
> >laws through a gravitational agenda.
> >
> >I take priority over Newton's reasoning for the rotational and orbital
> >components of the Earth's motion on its axis and around the Sun are
> >derived directly from Kepler's planetary laws while Newton adopts an
> >erroneous assumption that geocentric and heliocentric coordinates are
> >equivalent.
> >
> >http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm
>
> You keep posting that link, which has exactly nothing to do with axial
> rotation. Could that be because there _is_ backing for your ideas,
> especially in Flamsteed's writings?
>

You want axial rotation to 23 hours 56 min 04 sec and a 10 year old
and that image is your astronomical justification,just swap the
position of the Sun and the Earth.

You possess a mindset which is no better or worse than a creationist,a
geologist should be capable of figuring out that indeed a
physicist,behind all the linguistic fireworks,believes that the
Universe is going round the Earth.

It is just a question of your theories coming home to mamma and the
error Flamsteed created and Newton expanded on.

> >
> >Newton assumes that you can swap the position of the Earth and the Sun
> >(as demonstrated in the above graphic) and arrive at equivalency for
> >orbital motion whether the Earth goes round the Sun or the Sun goes
> >around the Earth.The only validity for that view is the sidereal
> >format which is basically the equivalency for the Earth's axial
> >rotation against stellar circumpolar motion.
> >
> >"PHÆNOMENON IV.
> >That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
> >primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
> >earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
> >distances from the sun."
> >
> >http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
> >
>
> This doesn't have anything to do with axial rotation either.
>
> >
> >> The transfer of angular momentum requires the involvement
> >> of torques, just as the transfer of linear momentum
> >> requires the involvement of forces.
> >>
> >> So, identify the torques involved in the Earth-Sun system
> >> (as the Earth spins and orbits), and then solve for the
> >> magnitude of the effects involved. Simple.
> >
> >You are operating on the principle that conservation of angular
> >momentum is valid for planetary axial and orbital motion but I assure
> >you it is not.When Newton tells you "That the fixed stars being at
> >rest" he is unwittingly drawing on Flamsteed's invalid premise that
> >axial rotation and stellar circumpolar motion are equivalent and
> >Newton bumps this up to the geocentric/heliocentric orbital
> >equivalency.Simple.
> >
> > Only after
> >> you've done this can you pass judgment on whether any
> >> such effects are important, or even noticeable in practical
> >> terms.
> >
> >Begin with a premise such as the the geocentric/heliocentric orbital
> >equivalency as Newton did and you do not have a practical framework to
> >build on,in the early 20th century they went further and jettisoned
> >even that equivalency and made everything homocentric.I can indeed
> >pass judgement on your concepts for I can trace the sourse of the
> >problem back to an inferior and invalid premise by Flamsteed
> >concerning the Earth's axial rotation,strictly speaking,it is an
> >astronomical matter from 1677 that does not involve gravitation for it
> >precedes that agenda ( 1687).
>
> I have a horrid feeling that what you really believe is that the Earth
> does not rotate on its axis, or that the Earth does not go round the
> Sun, or both.
> That might explain why you ignored my remark about the Foucault
> pendulum.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Earth rotation
    ... position of the Sun and the Earth. ... Universe is going round the Earth. ... >>format which is basically the equivalency for the Earth's axial ... >>rotation against stellar circumpolar motion. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Avoiding the Leap Second
    ... hour/ 360 deg equivalency. ... position of the Sun in the sky. ... North) that is 90 degrees counter-clockwise from there. ... But all this is true at one *instant* of time, on a frozen Earth. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Earth rotation
    ... >> motion, orbital, axial, or otherwise. ... >Newton assumes that you can swap the position of the Earth and the Sun ... >format which is basically the equivalency for the Earth's axial ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Earth rotation
    ... >> motion, orbital, axial, or otherwise. ... >Newton assumes that you can swap the position of the Earth and the Sun ... >format which is basically the equivalency for the Earth's axial ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • 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)