Stars that visibly move?

wrote in
:

In calgary.general Dr. Fred Mbogo wrote:
"Rat Patrol" wrote in
:

Of course the rotation (spinning) of the earth causes gravity.
Why would say it doesn't ?

You're joking, right?

(Then again, I recently discovered a person I thought was normal
didn't know that tides are caused by the moon.)

They aren't, they're caused by the earth's spinning. As the earth
spins, the oceans slosh to one side, and then they slosh to the other
side, kind of like bathtub waves. The moon has little waster, and
thus little influence over our oceans.

Are YOU joking now?

Uzi wrote in
:

I remember sitting across the lunch table at work from some guy who
thought that the Atlantic was bigger than the Pacific, and that
Beavers were carnivorous!

Why else would they have such huuuuuge pointy teeth?

"Dr. Fred Mbogo" wrote in news:Xns93BC3140F0CDfredm@
24.69.255.211:

Uzi wrote in
:

I remember sitting across the lunch table at work from some guy who
thought that the Atlantic was bigger than the Pacific, and that
Beavers were carnivorous!

Why else would they have such huuuuuge pointy teeth?


..... I thought they were flat... or am I thinking of a different aminal
that eats trees and builds damns?

"Banana" wrote in message
...
snip
At certain times you might possibly see the ISS.....there was a
website around that tracked satellites and the ISS to give you the
coordinates and times for your location in order to catch these
sitings...it might even be on www.astronomy.com

www.heavens-above.com

Jon Pike wrote:

They aren't, they're caused by the earth's spinning. As the earth
spins, the oceans slosh to one side, and then they slosh to the other
side, kind of like bathtub waves. The moon has little waster, and
thus little influence over our oceans.



Are YOU joking now?


Agreed, I certainly hope that he is joking.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...an/Tides.shtml

--
In God we trust, all others we virus scan.

I saw the same thing on Tuesday, July 15th and thought I was imagining
it until I asked someone else who also noticed the star apparently
moving at random. At about 10:45pm EDT, this object appeared to move
rather quickly in changing directions for a few seconds and then
remain motionless for a few minutes. It was not wobbling nor did it
appear to be a helicopter or a conventional aircraft. I doubt that it
was a satellite as it was not moving in a straight line the same way
that the ISS does when it is visible.

While I was watching this, another object passed from South to North
in a manner similar to the ISS. According to the Sky & Telescope
website, the ISS was not due to pass overhead at that time. I received
the following explanation from Sky & Telescope;
"...the only candidate would be a rocket body used to launch the
Russian Okean O
satellite, which passed nearly overhead from SSE to N over your
location
centered at 10:41 p.m. it could have been as bright as 1.9 in
magnitude."

You can see when the ISS is due to pass over your location in the
'ALMANAC' section @
http://skyandtelescope.com/observing/skychart/

During a perfect moment of peace at Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:43:28 GMT, Jon
Pike interrupted with:

wrote in
:

Are YOU joking now?

Of course they are.

They obviously got bored trying to troll asr and came here for better
sport.

FOAD TROLL.

Dave "lart, lart, lart!" Barlow

In message "Dr. Fred Mbogo"
did ramble:

Satellites? Stars? Planes? Does anyone know if the ESS' orbit takes it
above Calgary, Alberta, Canada?

Aside: If they change direction suddenly, chances are pretty good
they're not satellites.

Although it would explain the reception problems I've had over the last
few days...

--
In the 60's people took acid to make the world weird.
Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.

How about the ISS it moves fast and is so very near. First in
visibility is the moon second is venus third is Jupiter,since I'm now
just guessing can I put the ISS after Venus. Truthfully I have never
seen the ISS in the sky. Bert

But isn't the whole idea of "pulling from the center" just a mathematical
convenience? Sort of like how all newtonian mechanics is "assume the earth
is flat and there is no air"?

Gravity is the mutual attraction between individual atoms. When you stand
on the surface of the earth, you are pulled down by the atoms directly under
your feet, plus the atoms beneath them, plus the atoms beneath them, plus...
To keep the math simple, you just approximate by using the center of the
mass, e.g.center of the earth.

Thus, if you were on a highly irregularly shaped object, such as a large
cigar shaped asteroid, you would find wildly differing amounts of gravity
depending on you position.



"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Bert wrote,

Asimov only relates the one half percent
less gravity at the equator due to the
equator being 13 miles further away from the earth's center than the
poles. Why is
that?

Your lower weght at the equator has two components.

1.) At the equator you're 6½ miles `higher` from the Earth's center
than you are at the poles. Weight decreases with altitude.
2.) The larger component is the centrifugal effect at the equator.

Why don't the earth's oceans bulge out
at the equator? It it spinning 1030 mph
faster than the poles.(yes)

The *whole planet* bulges at the equator. The oceans and the atmosphere
comprize the barest 'onion skin' on the planet. BTW, Jupiter and Saturn
have a higher rotation rates than the Earth (9.9 and 10.5 hours
respectively) and are visibly oblate (fatter) at the equator due to the
centrifugal effect.

oc