Re: non relativist / non aetherist reply
From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/12/04
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: The Physics Fails On The Way To A Singularity"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Simultaneity in curved space"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: non relativist / non aetherist reply"
- Next in thread: Oriel36: "Re: non relativist / non aetherist reply"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Jun 2004 03:02:21 -0700
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cPjyc.1683$HR5.14892082@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:273f8e06.0406110531.5c52d951@posting.google.com...
> | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<RQYxc.616$bd1.5438481@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> | > "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:273f8e06.0406090354.97b5193@posting.google.com...
> | > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<9kxxc.1755$q73.15898747@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> | > | > "Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> | > | > news:ca4g9e$m8$1@usenet.otenet.gr...
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:273f8e06.0406080445.8e5d360@posting.google.com...
> | > | > |
> | > | > | [snip]
> | > | > |
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Newton,borrowing on Flamsteed, incorrectly operated on the
> principle
> | > | > | > that heliocentric coordinates are equivalent to geocentric
> coordinates
> | > | > | > and set in motion the shift away from pure astronomy to the
> 'laws of
> | > | > | > physics'.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | [snip]
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Is the above a criticism and if it is, do you have a alternative
> or
> would
> | > | > | like to pinpoint exactly where the error was from the transition
> from
> | > | > | kinematics to dynamics in MN?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | I tell you, it's very easy to talk generalities but hard , very
> hard,
> to
> | > | > | offer an alternative foundation to ground physical laws. It is
> indeed
> so
> | > | > | hard that it only makes sense to dismiss any such statements are
> mental
> | > | > | garbage unless they are supported by rigid laws that offer
> quantitative
> | > | > | predictions whilst alluding to a solid foundation.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Can you? If not, spare the details.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Mike
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | Why Kelleher
> | > | > doesn't understand Orion is now in the daytime sky (in summer) will
> forever
> | > | > remain a mystery, I suppose.
> | > | > Androcles.
> | > |
> | > | Orion is a constellation,a figment of man's imagination and ultimately
> | > | useless in progressing to consideration of stellar rotation around the
> | > | Milky Way axis.It appears that you have trouble with the Earth's
> | > | orbital direction and how the orientation of the daylight/darkness
> | > | line changes in accordance with Kepler's second law.
> | > |
> | > | http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/04f15.jpg
>
> | > | Apply constant axial rotation within the above graphic and you have
> | > | the real reason for the necessity of th Equation of Time as the Earth
> | > | axially rotates to face the Sun/Earth line through 360 degrees of
> | > | rotation.
> | > |
> | > | The daylight/darkness line is a property of orbital motion remaining
> | > | always tangential to the Sun/Earth line -
> | >
> | >
> | > See what I mean?
> | > When the planet rotates 360 degrees to face the sun once again at A, it
> also
> | > moves to G and is no longer facing the sun.
> | >
> | > | http://www.users.muohio.edu/primacag/images/earth%20from%20space.gif
> | > See what I mean?
> |
> | The arrows reflect the Earth's orbital orientation to the Sun and
> | demonstrate how the daylight/darkness line changes its orientation in
> | accordance with Kepler's second law.
> |
> | Recognise that the direction of the Earth's orbital motion at dawn (as
> | the Earth axially rotates out of its orbital shadow) and you will
> | never think in terms of 'sunrise' again nor any perceived motion of
> | the Sun.
> I have never "thought" of sunrise or sunset other than a local phenomenon,
> since watching the sun go down over the Indian Ocean and thinking of it
> rising on a loved one on the American continent, and *realizing* the west
> coast of Africa was at the top of a hill. Not just reading that in a book,
> but experiencing it first hand.
>
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | > When the planet moves 360 degrees to face the sun once again at A, it
> also
> | > shows phases like Venus. The terminator will soon vanish.
> | >
> | >
> | > | http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/scidiscovery/images/mn000779_w150.gif
> | > |
> | > | The distant stars are useful in determining the orbital direction of
> | > | the Earth and from there move on to the next motion of the Earth
> | > | around the galactic axis or it is useful in presenting the reference
> | > | for the Equation of Time variation.
> | > |
> | > | Flamsteed,in his effort to reduce celestial motion to terrestial
> | > | longitudinal coordinates foisted a celestial sphere on you,the
> | > | 'curved space' of relativists is just a symptom of your odd stellar
> | > | circumpolar universe insofar as Newton's geocentric/heliocentric
> | > | equivalency was reduced to a homocentric indiscriminate one in the
> | > | early 20th century.
> | > |
> | > | I don't fault you for being wrong Androcles,you just don't know any
> | > | better.I did say that it does'nt matter whether you are for or against
> | > | relativity,the sourse of the disease is back centuries ago.
> | >
> | > Our ideas of Heliocentrism, to which you still adhere, have moved on
> since
> | > Copernicus.
> | > Androcles
> |
> | Naw,they went backwards from Flamsteed's false premise and method for
> | determining constant axial.
>
> I fail to see how you can call observation "false", or conservation of
> angular momentum "false". You sound like Sirvent the Unscientific and his
> "unphysical".
>
I will remind you that Flamsteed's premise that he could prove the
Earth rotates constantly via stellar circumpolar motion originated in
1677 or 10 years before any gravitational agenda of the Principia
therefore it begs neither gravitational terminology nor a
gravitational solution and it is strictly a matter for astronomers.
The heliocentric/geocentric equivalency presumes that the positions of
the Earth and Sun can be switched .
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm
The .986 degree orbital displacement represents 3 min 56 sec by which
it is ascertained that rotation is constant to stellar circumpolar
motion.You view the circumpolar motion of the stars in this light
however the constant .986 degree orbital displacement of the Earth is
in direct conflict with Kepler's second law for planetary
rotation,simultaneously it is in direct conflict with axial rotation
wrt the Sun.
>
> | From my own experience,I had always heard
> | of Copernicus and to a lesser extent Kepler without ever really going
> | outside and grasping the enormity of their insights,at least as a
> | visual experience.
>
> Then do it. Line up a star with a couple of posts and check it.
> It will transit your posts 23 hours and 56 minutes later. Surely such a
> simple experiment is something a child can do.
> You won't need Flamsteed, Newton or Copernicus to do that.
> A modern wristwatch is accurate enough for 4 minutes a day.
>
The only reason you have a wristwatch with equable hours,minutes and
seconds is that there already existed the assumption that axial
rotation is constant by means of the 24 hour/360 degree longitude
equivalency and the Equation of Time adjustment at noon as the
meridians rotate to face the Sun directly.The Equation of Time
neither uses nor requires reference to stellar circumpolar motion,it
assumes axial rotation to be constant and equalises all the variables
which generate the natural unequal day.
> | Even if I take nothing away from attempting to
> | introduce orbital orientation through the daylight/darkness line which
> | does Not follow axial coordinates and thereby drawing attension away
> | from the stellar circumpolar framework,I could not do justice to those
> | astronomers , their meticulous observations and their insights
>
> Meticulous then, because clocks had only just become accurate enough to do
> it, but simple today. Heck, for about £400 you can buy a computer driven
> telescope, and it WILL have the sidereal day programmed into it.
> If not, take it back to the store where you bought it and ask for your money
> back.
>
Stellar circumpolar motion is useful only for cataloguing and the
civil calendar but is an inept means to base modelling of planetary or
large scale cosmological motion.
Newton is being misled by Flamsteed into believing that geocentric and
heliocentric longitudes are equivalent,in other words the Earth around
the Sun is equivalent to the Sun around the Earth.
What you and Newton do not perceive is that Flamsteed has reduced
celestial coordinates to axial longitude coordinates and not orbital
coordinates.Looking at the graphic again,if you switch the Sun and
Earth's positions,the .986 degree difference represents 3 min 56 sec
of axial rotation
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm
Orbital motion dissapears and you are left with a spinning Earth and
nothing else and this is supposed to be proof that the Earth rotates
constantly !.
> |
> | If you are prepared to ignore 'sunrise' and consider that the
> | division between darkness and light points in the general (it can be
> | calculated precisely) direction of the Earth's orbital motion as the
> | Earth axially rotates out of its orbital shadow you may be initially
> | disorientated by the unfamiliarity but therein lies something that
> | Galileo experienced,you will see what I mean.
> |
> | http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/04f15.jpg
>
> What you "mean" is the Earth rotates 360 degrees in 24 hours and the
> rest of the world knows that the Earth rotates 360 degrees in 23 hours and
> 56 minutes, relative to the stars. You should try to convince those that
> spend their time looking at the stars, not the sun. You are going against
> every astronomer that ever lived.
I am not wrong in drawing parallels to creationist thinking on this
matter,only an astronomer of distinction would recognise that
Flamsteed is piggybacking on the already existing assumption that
axial rotation is constant via the 24 hour/360 degree longitude
equivalency and the Equation of Time adjustment.
Geocentrically,Flamsteed has to create a mean motion for the Sun to
pull off the stunt and heliocentrically this means a mean orbital
motion for the Earth,this is in direct conflict with Kepler's second
law. Newton assumes the geocentric/heliocentric equivalency for
orbital motion but in actuality he is subscribing to Flamsteed's axial
rotational/stellar circumpolar motion equivalency.
Again,the falsehood of Flamsteed's premise originates in 1677 and a
decade before gravitational considerations but it does color the
gravitational agenda insofar it may the first instance of a 'free
creation of the mind' in terms of the heliocentric/geocentric
equivalency.
You accept the observation that the Earth rotates to the stellar
circumpolar framework without any reference to variable orbital motion
of the Earth.The Earth does not rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours
56 min 04 sec and its constant axial rotation cannot be proven in that
manner.A man who cannot determine what the rotation rate of the Earth
is, and it is and always will be determined by the 24 hour/360 degree
longitude equivalency, cannot consider himself capable of
investigating natural phenomena and must take his place alongside
creationists and geocentrists as an intellectual exercise.
> Here's an even better description of Kepler's equal area law:
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm
> (make sure you have animation turned on)
> Androcles
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: The Physics Fails On The Way To A Singularity"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Simultaneity in curved space"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: non relativist / non aetherist reply"
- Next in thread: Oriel36: "Re: non relativist / non aetherist reply"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
