what's your bet?

I wager an increase in velocity.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29609

On Nov 13, 3:04*am, "Mike Mickle" wrote:
I wager an increase in velocity.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29609

There is no such thing as orbital mechanics,the Earth is not a
clockwork system and does not behave like a machine even though
dynamicists following Newton stilll try to fit a square Ra/Dec peg
into a round orbital hole.

Orbital motion is an entirely independent motion to daily rotation and
of two possibilities for orbital motion,one in keeping the same face
to the Sun over an annual orbit or changing its orientation through
360 degrees,all these guys in the universities and institutions still
have to discover the latter conception based on direct imaging as a
signature of a planet's orbital characteristics -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

These 'anomalies' sound like guys making work for themselves through
the usual empirical route of dwelling on minutae while they can't even
figure out the characteristics of the two largest motions of the
planet -daily rotation and orbital motion.

So much for all the opinions here from people about saving the planet
when they can't even save the forum !.

oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 13, 3:04 am, "Mike Mickle" wrote:
I wager an increase in velocity.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29609

There is no such thing as orbital mechanics,the Earth is not a
clockwork system and does not behave like a machine even though
dynamicists following Newton stilll try to fit a square Ra/Dec peg
into a round orbital hole.

Orbital motion is an entirely independent motion to daily rotation and
of two possibilities for orbital motion,

hmm, and who/what decided these two possibilities
for motion. That there are only two. Why not three
or 17.7? And what observational data confirms this?

I think in all cases the answer is: you. Observations
you make of yourself, while coating along on Nature's
back. You see Oriel - Nature is a turtle. And being a
turtle there are only two options for motion, those being:
eat or not-eat.

Good luck Einstein.

On Nov 14, 5:45*am, jerry warner wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 13, 3:04 am, "Mike Mickle" wrote:
I wager an increase in velocity.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29609

There is no such thing as orbital mechanics,the Earth is not a
clockwork system and does not behave like a machine even though
dynamicists following Newton stilll try to fit a square Ra/Dec peg
into a round orbital hole.

Orbital motion is an entirely independent motion to daily rotation and
of two possibilities for orbital motion,

hmm, and who/what decided these two possibilities
for motion.

In a way you are correct in that there are more choices,one more
choice to be exact,independent of daily rotation and its
characteristics,our planet can keep the same face to the Sun,change it
slowly through 360 degrees (the correct answer) or the third choice is
to completely ignore the fascinating way a planet orbits the Sun,not
as a conjecture but as an observational and 100% geometric certainty.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

The images convey in a spectacular way,a sort of fortunate set of
astronomical circumstances,how a planet orbitally turns to the central
Sun and when allied with daily rotation and its specifics,generates
both the seasonal variations and the variations in the natural noon
cycles.

I well understand the nuanced difference between describing seasonal
variations through 'tilt' and the actual dynamic which arises from the
specific orbital way a planet orbits the Sun but it is also the
difference between an astronomer and those who have pretensions to
being astronomers.






That there are only two. Why not three
or 17.7? And what observational data confirms this?

I think in all cases the answer is: you. Observations
you make of yourself, while coating along on Nature's
back. You see Oriel - Nature is a turtle. And being a
turtle there are only two options for motion, those being:
eat or not-eat.

Good luck Einstein.

On Nov 14, 12:10*am, oriel36 wrote:

I well understand the nuanced difference between describing seasonal
variations through 'tilt' and the actual dynamic which arises from the
specific orbital way a planet orbits the Sun

Well, actually you don't have a clue. If you did, you would know that
there is no such thing as an orbital specific. You are imagining
things that don't exist.

\Paul Alsing

On Nov 12, 9:15*pm, oriel36 wrote:

There is no such thing as orbital mechanics...


Bull****.


berk

On Nov 14, 6:55*am, TBerk wrote:
On Nov 12, 9:15*pm, oriel36 wrote:

There is no such thing as orbital mechanics...

Bull****.

berk

No astronomer worthy of the name would dare explain planetary
dynamics,cosmological structure and solar system geometry by way of
the rotation of the constellations around Polaris embodied by the Ra/
Dec convenience.The predictive qualities of the equatorial coordinate
system are superb for what it does within the calendar system but as
it is framed within the calendar system,attempting to explain
planetary rotation and orbital motion using right ascension is pretty
much a desperate thing to do.

Don't worry,I understand that you have to know what is correct first
in order to enjoy the differences so that it is not a matter of
arguing against people who are clearly wrong but rather a talent to
jump between different ideologies such as the original geocentric ones
to planetary dynmaics of Copernicus and Kepler to the distortions and
mutations of late 17th century empiricists and on to the really
exciting part,about 300 years of imaging power waiting to be put in
astronomical context since astronomy was mothballed by the Ra/Dec
dominance.

Try putting a sentence together the next time,not an attack on me for
that goes in one ear and out the other,but a technical point like Sam
always does and then you will have a proper forum.

On 2009-11-13, Mike Mickle wrote:
I wager an increase in velocity.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29609

I don't know.. you haven't provided any contextso we are unsure as
to what he issue is. Bear in mind that it may not be convenient
or even possible for readers to fire up a web browser window and
news posts should be self contained.

--
Andrew Smallshaw

On Nov 12, 6:04 pm, "Mike Mickle" wrote:
I wager an increase in velocity.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29609

It's a bit silly to worry about a few mm/s, that's the speed of
a snail, flip a coin.
Ken

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:09:15 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

It's a bit silly to worry about a few mm/s, that's the speed of
a snail, flip a coin.

It's investigating small deviations from theory that lead to new theory.
Personally I think that nothing more is going on here than an
accumulation of prosaic effects, but it's still worth examination.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com