Re: Precession

From: don findlay (don_at_tower.net.au)
Date: 10/25/04 

Date: 25 Oct 2004 16:17:24 -0700

bigdakine@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message news:<20041025050405.22420.00001230@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Precession
> >From: "Carsten Troelsgaard" carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk
> >Date: 10/24/04 12:56 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <417c330a$0$65542$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
> >
> >
> >"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> skrev i en meddelelse
> >news:a42650fc.0410241334.5272b0b7@posting.google.com...
> >> "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:<415e5f15$0$279$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>...
> >> > "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> > news:a42650fc.0410010539.586ee7ff@posting.google.com...
> >
> >snip
> >
> >> > Hi Sergey
> >> >
> >> > I hoped that astronomers would handle that kind of problems. I'm a
> geologist.
> >> >
> >> > > Why do you think
> >> > > Oriel's conception more absurd than mentioned and not mentioned here?
> >> >
> >> > I don't.
> >> >
> >> > Carsten
> >>
> >> !>>1I5=85 48
> >> 2 @0745;5
> >> B:Carsten Troelsgaard (carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk)
> >> "5<0:Re: Kook warning, Oriel36
> >>
> >>
> >> View this article only
> >> @C&#1087;?K
> >> =>2>AB59:sci.geo.geology
> >> 0B0:2004-10-02 00:56:06 PST
> >
> >It doesn't look as if my Outlook understands whatever you tried to send.
> >
> >> "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> news:a42650fc.0410010539.586ee7ff@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Dear Carsten, how do you think, does cannibalism of galaxies relate to
> >> > astronomy? And scatter of galaxies accelerating with the distance? Or
> >> > maybe, funnels of time, or the idea that our universe is a black hole?
> >> > Or that Jupiter consists of liquid metallic hydrogen?
> >
> >snip
> >
> >> Dear Carsten, sorry that I only now could post. Astronomers do not
> >> cope with these matters. They only create illusions for themselves.
> >> This also reflects on geology, so you feel this difficulty, too. ;-)
> >
> >To be frank, I never gave 'black holes' or other astronomical considerations
> >much attention...
> >except for handier problems like precession. Precession seems to be 'within
> >my reach' though my book
> >of physics says, that the Earth precesses a whole revolution in 26.000 years
> >- I find it somewhat
> >difficult to believe that the Earth's spin-axis at part of this time is lying
> >in the plane of the
> >Sun-Earth rotational plane and thus effectively give no intermediate seasons
> >through the year (or
> >rather half a year day/night for pole positions). I probably better get used
> >to the idea - unless
> >someone can correct my physics.
>
>
> If you're thinking that precessions means that at some point the Earth's
> rotation axis lies in the ecliptic plane, then you have the wrong idea.
>
> Precession in this case means that Earth's rotation axis makes one revolution
> about the figure axis in ~26000. The spin is inclined 23.5 degrees. Absent any
> other effects, that 23.5 degrees stays fixed. Precession, or more specifically,
> precession of the equinoxes, does not mean the Earth was once rolling like a
> bowling ball in its orbit.
>
> However, the Earht's inclination w.r.t the ecliptic (obliquity) does change,
> and this is an importatn component in Milankovich cycles.
>
> Stuart

Take this to sci.astronomy or sci.weather. This is a geology forum,
you know, ...plate tectonics rocks and ...and stuff

> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
>
>
> "Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
    ... nearest approach to the sun along the orbital plane," whatever the ... there was still some 'precession' left over. ... Why are you confusing rigid body motion and orbital motion when you ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
    ... nearest approach to the sun along the orbital plane," whatever the ... there was still some 'precession' left over. ... that theory was rejected because such an orbit would not be stable. ... Fluid motion from inside the planet along with the non-rigid material ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
    ... nearest approach to the sun along the orbital plane," whatever the ... there was still some 'precession' left over. ... like a rigid body motion. ... Precession of Earth's perihelion is not like a rigid body problem. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
    ... nearest approach to the sun along the orbital plane," whatever the ... there was still some 'precession' left over. ... that theory was rejected because such an orbit would not be stable. ... orbits are not rigid body problems. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Orbital precession w/o GR
    ... of the plane of the orbit (like if the plane of the orbit was ... Precession is due to gyroscopic moment. ... and doesn't give under it if any external torque ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)