Oriel -- Let me get your opinion

On Aug 28, 8:50Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 28, 8:07 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Â* Â*Seems like we've had this conversation in an infinite loop. The
Â* Â*problem is that you Â*fail to take into account that the masses of
Â* Â*the sun and Fomalhaut are not the same and you can NOT compare the
Â* Â*solar system to the Fomalhaut system with out this version of
Â* Â*Kepler's third law.

Â* Â* Â* Â*T^2 = (2Ï€)^2 a^3 / G M

Â* Â*So Gerald, you've got it WRONG and no matter how many time you post
Â* Â*your nonsense, you are still WRONG. Class starts Monday night!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How,for the love of God,can a correlation between radius and
circumference based on Pi be wrong !.

Â* Â*C = 2Ï€r holds just fine

Â* Â*But the Period T is relate to the radius by

Â* Â*T^2 = (2Ï€)^2 a^3 / G M

Â* Â*(872 yr)^2 = (2Ï€)^2 (115 AU )^3 / G (3.978 × 10^30 kg)

Â* Â*Why are you confusing orbital period with orbital circumference?.


Oh brother !,I hope you are not expecting me to respond with the
question as to how long it takes the Earth to complete a
924,375,700 KM journey around the Sun,so that this value will reflect
a Pi relationship with 1 AU or the mean radius of the Earth to the
Sun.

The neat trick of converting the orbital period into orbital distance
around the circumference allows anyone to determine that the orbital
distance of the Earth and its AU value correspond for any given planet
within our solar system or any planet in another solar system so that
Saturn's 9.5 AU corresponds to 9.5 times the orbital circumference of
the Earth,A 91.2 AU value for Fomalhaut b generates an orbital
circumference which is 872 times that of the Earth,if not by reasoning
then by simple multiplication and division of value with the Pi
proportion being the mediating device.

I wished to leave the forum for a while as I had hoped that this
important thread would not descend to a level where you could not
figure out that the orbital period and the orbital circumference are
the same ,for,when using the orbital characteristics of the Earth
generate a 1;1 proportion for our planet and a 91.2 AU/872 year
proportion for Fomalhaut b.

This is not a 'punch and judy' affair,the 115 AU/872 year correlation
does not tally with the Pi proportion impressed on orbital geometry
and characteristics,again,I had hoped dynamicists could see that the
first direct observation of a planet orbiting a distant star and it
already shows that something went badly wrong with Kepler's easy to
understand and enjoyable correlation between orbital periods and
orbital geometry,or rather,that hatchet job of Newton is the
conceptual millstone around your necks the same way it always was.

That lame duck mathematical notation,at least when applied to
astronomy,has its roots in the attempt to turn right ascencion into
daily rotation through 360 degrees but that is another story ,the real
insight of this thread is not to throw good information after bad but
to allow people the chance to become familiar with the ability to
translate the Earth's 365 day 5 hour 49 minute orbital period into its
924,375,700 KM orbital circumference and then use these values in
tandem with Pi to come up with proportional distances such as the 5 AU
value for Jupiter equating to an orbital diameter 5 times that of the
Earth's orbital circumference.

On Aug 29, 12:22Â*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 28, 8:50Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:





oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 28, 8:07 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Â* Â*Seems like we've had this conversation in an infinite loop. The
Â* Â*problem is that you Â*fail to take into account that the masses of
Â* Â*the sun and Fomalhaut are not the same and you can NOT compare the
Â* Â*solar system to the Fomalhaut system with out this version of
Â* Â*Kepler's third law.

Â* Â* Â* Â*T^2 = (2Ï€)^2 a^3 / G M

Â* Â*So Gerald, you've got it WRONG and no matter how many time you post
Â* Â*your nonsense, you are still WRONG. Class starts Monday night!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How,for the love of God,can a correlation between radius and
circumference based on Pi be wrong !.

Â* Â*C = 2Ï€r holds just fine

Â* Â*But the Period T is relate to the radius by

Â* Â*T^2 = (2Ï€)^2 a^3 / G M

Â* Â*(872 yr)^2 = (2Ï€)^2 (115 AU )^3 / G (3.978 × 10^30 kg)

Â* Â*Why are you confusing orbital period with orbital circumference?.

Oh brother !,I hope you are not expecting me to respond with the
question as to how long it takes the Earth to complete a
924,375,700 KM journey around the Sun,so that this value will reflect
a Pi relationship with 1 AU or the mean radius of the Earth to the
Sun.

The neat trick of converting the orbital period into orbital distance
around the circumference Â*allows anyone to determine that the orbital
distance of the Earth and its AU value correspond for any given planet
within our solar system or any planet in another solar system so that
Saturn's 9.5 AU corresponds to Â*9.5 times the orbital circumference of
the Earth,A 91.2 AU value for Fomalhaut b generates an orbital
circumference which is 872 times that of the Earth,if not by reasoning
then by simple multiplication and division of value with the Pi
proportion being the mediating device.

I wished to leave the forum for a while as I had hoped that this
important thread would not descend to a level where you could not
figure out that the orbital period and the orbital circumference are
the same ,for,when using the orbital characteristics of the Earth
generate a 1;1 proportion for our planet and a 91.2 AU/872 year
proportion for Fomalhaut b.

This is not a 'punch and judy' affair,the 115 AU/872 year correlation
does not tally with the Pi proportion impressed on orbital geometry
and characteristics,again,I had hoped dynamicists could see that the
first direct observation of a planet orbiting a distant star and it
already shows that something went badly wrong with Kepler's easy to
understand and enjoyable correlation between orbital periods and
orbital geometry,or rather,that hatchet job of Newton is the
conceptual Â*millstone around your necks the same way it always was.

That lame duck mathematical notation,at least when applied to
astronomy,has its roots in the attempt to turn right ascencion into
daily rotation through 360 degrees but that is another story ,the real
insight of this thread is not to throw good information after bad but
to allow people the chance to become familiar with the ability to
translate the Earth's 365 day 5 hour 49 minute orbital period into its
924,375,700 KM orbital circumference and then use these values in
tandem with Pi to come up with proportional distances such as the 5 AU
value for Jupiter equating to an orbital diameter 5 times that of the
Earth's orbital circumference.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I meant a 5 AU value for Jupiter corresponds to an orbital
circumference which is 5 times that of the Earth's orbital
circumference.

The 91.2 AU value for Fomalhaut b corresponds to an orbital
circumference which is 91.2 times the orbital circumference of the
Earth.

On Aug 29, 4:30Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

I meant a 5 AU value for Jupiter corresponds to an orbital
circumference which is 5 times that of the Earth's orbital
circumference.

The 91.2 AU value for Fomalhaut b corresponds to an orbital
circumference which is 91.2 times the orbital circumference of the
Earth.

Â* Â*Fomalhaut-b's orbital radius is 115 astronomical units, Gerald.


You are arguing against the Pi proportion and that is about close to
impossible for any sane person.

The Earth's orbital circumference to radius proportion is 1 year to 1
AU

The proportion for Jupiter is 5.1 AU for 12 years

The proportion for Saturn is 9.5 AU for 30 years

The proportion Fomalhaut b is 91.2 AU for 872 years

As 91.2 expands to an orbital circumference via the Pi proportion,the
division of the resulting orbital circumference by the orbital
circumference of the Earth will return a value of approximately
91.2.The race should be on to determine the proportional formula which
begins with 1; 1 for the Earth,then has a 6.9 difference for Jupiter
(12 - 5.1) moves to a 20.5 difference for Saturn and a 780.8
difference for Fomalhaut b.

It all begins with the original reckoning of Kepler,for even if
provisionally, Formalhaut b moves on average of .4 deg by direct
observation each Earth year,it will move through a complete 360 degree
orbital circumference in 872 years.The cube root of 872 years is 9.55
and the square of that is 91.2 AU and dividing the resulting orbital
circumference with the 924 000 000 km circumference of the Earth will
yield the same proportion.I don't think it is the last word but this
stuff is enjoyable .

No point in throwing mathematical notation at an astronomer who uses
the language of geometry including physical distances and proportions
to arrive at correct values for the orbital characteristics of
Fomalhaut b and if that planet's orbit,at least sampled within the
next 20 years,shows an orbital displacement of .4 deg for each Earth
year,it will produce the correct 91.2 AU /872 year correlation but
115 AU /872 years makes no sense.

Â* Â*And using Kepler's third law, we get

Â* Â* Â*T^2 = (2Ï€)^2 a^3 / G M
Â* Â* (872 yr)^2 = (2Ï€)^2 (115 AU )^3 / G (3.978 × 10^30 kg)

Â* Â*Kepler's third law works beautifully for the Fomalhaut system! The
Â* Â*observations agree beautifully with Kepler's law of Harmony!

Â* Â*Crank the numbers I've substituted into the equation, Gerald..
Â* Â*They work like a champ.

There is nothing speculative in Kepler's correlation,it is all
geometry and proportions so that even if Fomalhaut b moves faster and
slower during its 872 year orbit than a planet at a similar distance
in our solar system,the relationship between the orbital circumference/
period and the planet's orbital radius from the central Sun cannot be
anything other than 91.2 AU.

It is not my problem that your mathematical wizardry is in conflict
with the Pi proportion and I already know where the limitations are
in astronomical terms but I am not going to throw good information
after bad and I am looking forward to my break .If I come back and
still find you believe a 115 AU/ 872 year correlation then you will
still be wron

On Aug 29, 5:22*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 28, 8:50*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

Oh brother !,I hope you are not expecting me to respond with the
question as to how long it takes the Earth to complete a
924,375,700 KM journey around the Sun,so that this value will reflect
a Pi relationship with 1 AU or the mean radius of the Earth to the
Sun.

No, we already know that this takes a year.

I wished to leave the forum for a while as I had hoped that this
important thread would not descend to a level where you could not
figure out that the orbital period and the orbital circumference are
the same

In our experience, it takes longer to get somewhere if you move more
slowly when doing it.

If orbital period equalled orbital circumference, then Kepler's law
would make orbital period strictly proportional to radius, rather than
the square/cube proportion.

This is not a 'punch and judy' affair,

OK, we'll call them Adam and Lillith.

John Savard

On Aug 29, 5:32Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 29, 4:30 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

I meant a 5 AU value for Jupiter corresponds to an orbital
circumference which is 5 times that of the Earth's orbital
circumference.
The 91.2 AU value for Fomalhaut b corresponds to an orbital
circumference which is 91.2 times the orbital circumference of the
Earth.
Â* Â*Fomalhaut-b's orbital radius is 115 astronomical units, Gerald.

You are arguing against the Pi proportion and that is about close to
impossible for any sane person.

Â* Â*No Gerald--Fomalhaut-b's orbital radius of 115 has been MEASURED.


Don't be ridiculous,the mean orbital radius value has to be a product
of the orbital period and the distance the planets travels along its
orbital circumference and for a 872 year value,the AU must be 91.2
because the AU itself represents a variation of the Pi proportion
applied to orbital characteristics.The proportions have to balance
themselves in comparing planetary radii with the orbital periods of
both planets and must return the same AU proportion.

Saturn has an orbital radius 9.5 times that of the Earth and an
orbital circumference 9.5 times that of the Earth,the trick is to
expand the physical AU distance to an orbital circumference and then
divide by the Earth's orbital circumference.but you must keep an eye
on the diverging orbital periods which begin with 1 AU/1 year for the
Earth and diverge in a predictable way as the orbital radii grow,when
using the Earth as a geometric gauge,the periods reflect the AU and
visa versa,they have to as Pi is controlling the radius/orbital
circumference distance.

So,you just cannot say that Fomalhaut b radius is 115 AU without
attaching it to the orbital circumference and period reflecting
Kepler's reckoning on 1298 years for that value or,the more probable
91.2 AU/872 year value.











The Earth's orbital circumference to radius proportion is 1 year to 1
AU

The proportion for Jupiter is 5.1 AU Â*for 12 years

The proportion for Saturn Â*is Â*9.5 AU for 30 years

The proportion Fomalhaut b is 91.2 AU for 872 years

Â* Â*That would be true ONLY if Fomalhaut had the same mass as the sun.
Â* Â*It DOES NOT!



It is not my problem that your mathematical wizardry is in conflict
with the Pi proportion and I already know where the limitations Â*are
in astronomical terms but I am not going to throw good information
after bad and I am looking forward to my break .If I come back and
still find you believe a 115 AU/ 872 year correlation then you will
still be wron

Â* Â*Your problem is you don't know (and can't do) simple algebra or unit
Â* Â*conversions. You are mathematically ILLITERATE, Gerald. And that is
Â* Â*a big problem when trying to do orbital mechanics!


No offence Sam,you are the one with the Pi problem based on actual
physical distances and direct observations.



Â* Â*Fomalhaut-b's orbital radius is 115 astronomical units, Gerald.

Â* Â*And using Kepler's third law, we get

Â* Â* Â*T^2 = (2Ï€)^2 a^3 / G M
Â* Â* (872 yr)^2 = (2Ï€)^2 (115 AU )^3 / G (3.978 × 10^30 kg)

Â* Â*Kepler's third law works beautifully for the Fomalhaut system! The
Â* Â*observations agree beautifully with Kepler's law of Harmony!

I use physical distances,actual descriptions of planets,direct
observations and you still can't get it but this is a common thing
when something new comes up such as converting the Earth's orbital
period into distance and working from there,as for you and the
equations that give you a hideous 115 AU/872 year correlation in
conflict with the Pi proportion,Galileo had some words for your type
of reasoning or rather lack of it -

" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

The limitations of the equations as they apply to astronomy are now
obvious enough and be my guest and continue with the pretension but
this thread is one of the most important you are likely to see as it
leads to a place of pure geometry - the Pi proportion.I genuinely hope
genuine investigators succeed,truly !.

On Aug 29, 10:32*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

The Earth's orbital circumference to radius proportion is 1 year to 1
AU

The proportion for Jupiter is 5.1 AU *for 12 years

The proportion for Saturn *is *9.5 AU for 30 years

The proportion Fomalhaut b is 91.2 AU for 872 years

* *That would be true ONLY if Fomalhaut had the same mass as the sun.
* *It DOES NOT!

But that's his whole point!

Mass has nothing to do with astronomy - that's empiricism and
ballistics!

So he is using Kepler's original definition of the Astronomical Unit
(or at least what he says is Kepler's original definition of the
Astronomical Unit), which gives the Astronomical Unit a different
length in the Fomalhaut system. The difference in the length of the
astronomical unit embodies the fact that planets orbiting Fomalhaut at
the same distance as planets orbiting the Sun do not have the same
periods - a fact whose cause Newton illegitimately assigned to mass!

So his problem isn't that he is being inconsistent. It goes *way*
deeper than that.

John Savard

On Aug 29, 7:16Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 29, 5:32 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Aug 29, 4:30 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
I meant a 5 AU value for Jupiter corresponds to an orbital
circumference which is 5 times that of the Earth's orbital
circumference.
The 91.2 AU value for Fomalhaut b corresponds to an orbital
circumference which is 91.2 times the orbital circumference of the
Earth.
Â* Â*Fomalhaut-b's orbital radius is 115 astronomical units, Gerald.
You are arguing against the Pi proportion and that is about close to
impossible for any sane person.
Â* Â*No Gerald--Fomalhaut-b's orbital radius of 115 has been MEASURED.

Don't be ridiculous,the mean orbital radius value has to be a product
of the orbital period and the distance the planets travels along its
orbital circumference and for a 872 year value,the AU Â*must be 91.2
because the AU itself represents a variation of the Pi proportion
applied to orbital characteristics.The proportions have to balance
themselves in comparing planetary radii with the orbital periods of
both planets and must return the same AU proportion.

Saturn has an orbital radius Â*9.5 times that of the Earth and an
orbital circumference 9.5 times that of the Earth,the trick is to
expand the physical Â*AU distance to an orbital circumference and then
divide by the Earth's orbital circumference.but you must keep an eye
on the diverging orbital periods which begin with 1 AU/1 year for the
Earth and diverge in a predictable way as the orbital radii grow,when
using the Earth as a geometric gauge,the periods reflect the AU and
visa versa,they have to as Pi is controlling the radius/orbital
circumference distance.

So,you just cannot say that Fomalhaut b radius is 115 AU without
attaching it to the orbital circumference and period reflecting
Kepler's reckoning on 1298 years for that value or,the more probable
91.2 AU/872 year value.

The Earth's orbital circumference to radius proportion is 1 year to 1
AU
The proportion for Jupiter is 5.1 AU Â*for 12 years
The proportion for Saturn Â*is Â*9.5 AU for 30 years
The proportion Fomalhaut b is 91.2 AU for 872 years
Â* Â*That would be true ONLY if Fomalhaut had the same mass as the sun.
Â* Â*It DOES NOT!

It is not my problem that your mathematical wizardry is in conflict
with the Pi proportion and I already know where the limitations Â*are
in astronomical terms but I am not going to throw good information
after bad and I am looking forward to my break .If I come back and
still find you believe a 115 AU/ 872 year correlation then you will
still be wron
Â* Â*Your problem is you don't know (and can't do) simple algebra or unit
Â* Â*conversions. You are mathematically ILLITERATE, Gerald. And that is
Â* Â*a big problem when trying to do orbital mechanics!

No offence Sam,you are the one with the Pi problem based on actual
physical distances and direct observations.

Â* Â*Fomalhaut-b's orbital radius is 115 astronomical units, Gerald.

Â* Â*And using Kepler's third law, we get

Â* Â* Â*T^2 = (2Ï€)^2 a^3 / G M
Â* Â* (872 yr)^2 = (2Ï€)^2 (115 AU )^3 / G (3.978 × 10^30 kg)

Â* Â*Kepler's third law works beautifully for the Fomalhaut system! The
Â* Â*observations agree beautifully with Kepler's law of Harmony!

I use physical distances,actual descriptions of planets,direct
observations and you still can't get it but this is a common thing
when something new comes up such as converting the Earth's orbital
period into distance and working from there,as for you and the
equations that give you a hideous 115 AU/872 year correlation in
conflict with the Pi proportion,Galileo had some words for your type
of reasoning or rather lack of it -

Â* Â*Sorry Jerald--Multiple direct angular distance measurement yields 115 AU!
Â* Â* Â*http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081114.html


If the orbital radius of Fomalhaut b is 115 AU,that corresponds to
1298 years, by Kepler's reckoning for a complete orbital circuit or an
average .28 deg of orbital motion every Earth year compared to .4 deg
for 91.2 AU making a circuit of 872 years.

The point is not that the AU distance is 115 AU or 91.2 AU but the
corresponding orbital periods must reflect the AU distances,the former
will be 1298 years or an .28 deg orbital motion for each Earth year
or 872 years with an average .41 deg of orbital motion.

I am correct and furthermore,you should be delighted to see how the AU
proportion uses the Earth's orbital period in proportion to its radius
as 1;1 so that the 1 year orbital period of the Earth can be
transfered into orbital distance and then compared with any
orbit,anywhere in the Universe without any speculative inputs at
all.Using a .28 deg orbital average for Formalhaut b,the value will be
115 AU/1298 years or 91.2 AU /872 years but with more information
needed,these value are provisional but the proportions are the same.




" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Â*Galileo

The limitations of the equations as they apply to astronomy are now
obvious enough and be my guest and continue with the pretension but
this thread is one of the most important you are likely to see as it
leads to a place of pure geometry - the Pi proportion.I genuinely hope
genuine investigators succeed,truly !.

Â* Â*I take it you don't have the math background (algebra) to solve
Â* Â*equations.

You want a knee jerk reaction but I have been honest that you do not
know the limitations of your notation and when you try to distort
astronomical principles like Newton did,you end up having conflicts
with Pi or the daily rotation of the Earth and the 24 hour value.Too
greedy or too stupid,take your pick but as far as I am concerned,these
last 3 postings of mine are probably as definitive as I would like
them to be,at least for the forum purposes.

On Aug 29, 1:00*pm, oriel36 wrote:

You want a knee jerk reaction but I have been honest...Too
greedy or too stupid,take your pick but as far as I am concerned,these
last 3 postings of mine are probably as definitive as I would like
them to be,at least for the forum purposes.

Gerald, I have come to the conclusion that you are anything but
honest. In fact, I believe you to be a bald-faced liar.

NO ONE who uses the language as well as you do, NO ONE who is as well-
read as you seem to be, can really be as completely stupid or
uneducated as you appear to be, day after day, on topic after topic,
in this and many other forums. It is simply not possible, in my view.

I have been led to believe that it would take an intelligent person to
get every single question wrong on, for example, the SAT test, or the
ACT test (do they still give this one?), because you would need to be
smart enough to know which multiple-choice answer was right in order
to mark a wrong one. A stupid or uneducated person would randomly
guess the correct answer at least part of the time. I think you could
choose the wrong answer a vast majority of the time. Just like you do
here.

I think that you know exactly what you are doing in these forums. You
take common astronomic topics that someone is talking about, extract
some small factoid from the conversation, and proceed to run amok by
making a mountain out of a molehill.

This most recent topic really takes the cake, and leads me to my
current conclusion. The math involved is just too easy, too basic, too
"Keplerian", and too well established, Newton notwithstanding, for
even you to dispute. In your zealous defense of the "Pi Proportion"
you have finally revealed the real game that you play here. You have
finally carried your "brilliance" a little too far.

I first became suspicious during your so-called "Twilight Effect"
discussions, where you flatly refused to acknowledge that the angle of
the sun to the horizon had anything at all to do with the length of
twilight, and that it was due entirely to the various surface speeds
at different latitudes. I kept asking myself "how can he argue with
good logic?" The answer, of course, is that you can't. You understand
perfectly well that your claims fly in the face of logical mainstream
thinking, and you revel in the fact that "normal" people will go so
very far in their attempts to help you "see the light".

So, the jig is up, as far as I am concerned, and you have been found-
out. Unless, of course, you really are that stupid. But I doubt it.
This Game is over.

\Paul Alsing

On Aug 29, 4:57*pm, palsing wrote:
where you flatly refused to acknowledge that the angle of
the sun to the horizon had anything at all to do with the length of
twilight,

But the Sun is round. How can it have an angle?

Of course, you mean the angle of the Sun's apparent path to the
horizon, but I think that the problem there is simply that he has such
contempt for our blindness in following Newton that he refuses to read
our arguments well enough to be able to reach the point of admitting
even that he missed a point.

John Savard

On Aug 29, 4:45*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

... I think that the problem there is simply that he has such
contempt for our blindness in following Newton that he refuses to read
our arguments well enough to be able to reach the point of admitting
even that he missed a point.

John Savard

I dunno, John, I really think he knows a lot more than he lets on.

I think he loves to stir things up and basks in the attention he
brings upon himself, even though it is almost always negative
attention.

I'm pretty convinced that he is playing us to some degree.

\Paul Alsing