More than tides affecting the moons distance?

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 06:20:24 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

|
|"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message
.invalid...
|: In sci.astro message ,
|: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:46:15, Androcles posted:
|:
|: The Moon doesn't orbit the Earth, it orbits a common barycentre.
|:
|:
|: The Moon actually orbits the Sun,
|
|No, the Moon orbits a barycentre it shares with the Sun.
|

It also has a barycentre G push/slipstream, with Mars/eros-demos/and
the counter rotated Venus....

The moon's orbit has consistently been stable with the earth for
some 35 billion years....

Tides don't affect the moon's distance, the moon affect the tides at
these "Solar+" Barycentre distances..

--
Triad Productions-Fantalla®~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
(http://tarbitch.balder.prohosting.com/htmlconc.html)

On Sep 23, 7:15 am, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 06:20:24 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

|
|"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message
.invalid...
|: In sci.astro message ,
|: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:46:15, Androcles posted:
|:
|: The Moon doesn't orbit the Earth, it orbits a common barycentre.
|:
|:
|: The Moon actually orbits the Sun,
|
|No, the Moon orbits a barycentre it shares with the Sun.
|

It also has a barycentre G push/slipstream, with Mars/eros-demos/and
the counter rotated Venus....

The moon's orbit has consistently been stable with the earth for
some 35 billion years....

Tides don't affect the moon's distance, the moon affect the tides at
these "Solar+" Barycentre distances..

--
Triad Productions-Fantalla®~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
(http://tarbitch.balder.prohosting.com/htmlconc.html)

When the usenet was a lot younger and the debates were genuinely good
reading * it was possible to see a turnaround in the type of reasoning
you engage in or rather an end to the intelectual descent which
strongly took hold in the early 20th century.The arguments for
terrestrial ballistics applied to planetary motion are geometric in
nature and the fact that at the core of Newton's framework beats an
astrological heart is hardly consolation for those who sought a means
to escape it.

* http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.ph...776a56b861cd02

People like Petr Beckmann are scarce on the ground now and although I
doubt if he could wade through the geometric arguments of a
heliocentric astronomer,at least he knew that the ground where all
this gets thrashed out remains in the realm of geometry -


" I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the
Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume
the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F = d(mv)/dt
and
never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant. That was done by
the
guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after him. Of course,
the
Principia are not written in the language of algebra, but of geometry,
but
that is not a relevant point here."
Petr Beckmann