Next Year, An Asteroid Will Be Discovered

Apparently there's a hoax going around that asteroid "2014 AZ5" will
hit the Earth with devastating consequences. Of course, since this
isn't 2014 yet, nobody's discovered an asteroid to which this name
could be applied.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

Apparently there's a hoax going around that asteroid "2014 AZ5" will
hit the Earth with devastating consequences. Of course, since this
isn't 2014 yet, nobody's discovered an asteroid to which this name
could be applied.

John Savard
=========================================
It certainly is a hoax since it impossible to predict where the Earth will
be to a precision within its own diameter a year from now.
If you really want to start a hoax you should say "A team of scientists led
by researchers from the University of [insert name here] have discovered
[insert hoax here]". Only the gullible don't know the team of scientists
are sophomore students and the researchers leading them is their professor,
none of which want their name mentioned.
Whatever, there has been a hoax going around that Algol is a double star
since the huckster John Goodricke said it was in 1782, there has been a hoax
going around that Einstein was a mathematician for over 100 years, why
should you care about a hoax going around? As this is the first I've heard
of az5, you started the hoax, Savard, by giving it a name. There's another
hoax going around that the Easter Bunny lays chocolate eggs; I started that
one. The main difference between your hoax and mine is that I deliver the
evidence, chocolate eggs on sale every Easter. I'm telling you so before the
event, there is no "I told you so" after the event with me.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
It certainly is a hoax since it impossible to predict where the Earth
will be to a precision within its own diameter a year from now.

That statement was true 50 years ago, when we didn't know the length of
the AU to better than 0.1%, but no longer. Our knowledge of the current
position of the Earth is uncertain to a few meters. The uncertainty in
is velocity is on the order of meters per year.

Don't take my word for it. Download a bunch of planetary ephemeris
files from ssd.jpl.nasa.gov, query them at a bunch of different times,
and see how the position vectors compare as a function of time. The
pairwise differences between files are certainly a great indicator of
our *consistency*.

I know that consistency doesn't necessarily imply *accuracy*. For that
you'd have to look at the postfit residuals of the observations. I
recall that we can fit the observed Earth-Mars distance to a meter or
so, over a period spanning 40+ years, and to do this we need to account
for perturbations from several hundred individual asteroids as well as
the rest of the planets. Yes, our range measurements are that good -- a
few meters out of tens of millions of km in the inner solar system, or 1
part in 10^10.

-- Bill

On Mar 8, 1:27*am, Bill Owen wrote:
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:

It certainly is a hoax since it impossible to predict where the Earth
will be to a precision within its own diameter a year from now.

That statement was true 50 years ago, when we didn't know the length of
the AU to better than 0.1%, but no longer. *Our knowledge of the current
position of the Earth is uncertain to a few meters. *The uncertainty in
is velocity is on the order of meters per year.

Don't take my word for it. *Download a bunch of planetary ephemeris
files from ssd.jpl.nasa.gov, query them at a bunch of different times,
and see how the position vectors compare as a function of time. *The
pairwise differences between files are certainly a great indicator of
our *consistency*.

I know that consistency doesn't necessarily imply *accuracy*. *For that
you'd have to look at the postfit residuals of the observations. *I
recall that we can fit the observed Earth-Mars distance to a meter or
so, over a period spanning 40+ years, and to do this we need to account
for perturbations from several hundred individual asteroids as well as
the rest of the planets. *Yes, our range measurements are that good -- a
few meters out of tens of millions of km in the inner solar system, or 1
part in 10^10.

-- Bill

Well Bill,for all the impressive assertions that contemporaries know
the orbital position of the Earth within a few meters there has never
been any discussion involving the differences in orbital speeds from
one day to the next,for instance,as the Earth is now moving towards
aphelion its orbital speed will start to slow down and this is
reflected definitively through a single reference that is easy to work
with insofar as it reflects two combined motions.That was quite a
story they built around Newton's absolute/relative time and motion
however those idiosyncratic terms conceal nothing other than the
normal astronomical observation that natural noon cycles vary as
opposed to the human devised average noon cycle -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality..." Newton

In Newton's era they hadn't a clue what caused the natural noon cycles
to vary and the later analemma with its wandering Sun is so perverse
that it no longer requires mentioning.The equation of time reflects
the rate of change in the orbital orientation of the Earth to the
central Sun assuming daily rotation is constant,academics who work off
a single axis for the Earth's daily and orbital motions may not care
but it is a 100% observational certainty that the observed variations
arise from two rotations to the central Sun.As daily rotation is
constant and a separate motion,I repeat,a separate motion,the
equalization of the natural noon cycle to an average is really a
smoothing out of the orbital component for each noon cycle.This is why
rotation never strays away from natural noon and why there are both
1461 natural noon cycles across 4 orbital circuits just as there are a
corresponding 24 hour cycles for the same period.Academics may not
care or do not have the ability to work through the technical details
but effectively ,with graphics and imaging,there is nothing that can't
be worked out to the satisfaction of all genuine astronomers.

I won't put you on the spot and ask you what reference do you use to
demonstrate that the Earth speeds up and slows down at different
points in its orbit,you are too much of a decent man for me to do
that,however,the vibrant topics have yet to surface from behind the
mechanical astronomy of late 17th century empiricism which relied too
much on clocks in drawing their conclusions on planetary dynamics.

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 9:26:57 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

... I won't put you on the spot and ask you what reference do you use to

demonstrate that the Earth speeds up and slows down at different

points in its orbit...

This is a tough question? Ya think? Students are taught this during the first week of Astronomy 1...

I'm not even going to give you any links, just Google up "Kepler's 3 laws" and study them for a few hours. Come back and tell us why the Earth moves at different rates at different points in its orbit. It is not really that hard to comprehend.

HINT - pay special attention to his 2nd law...

\Paul A

On Mar 8, 7:04*am, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 9:26:57 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
... I won't put you on the spot and ask you what reference do you use to

demonstrate that the Earth speeds up and slows down at different

points in its orbit...

This is a tough question? Ya think? Students are taught this during the first week of Astronomy 1...

I'm not even going to give you any links, just Google up "Kepler's 3 laws" and study them for a few hours. Come back and tell us why the Earth moves at different rates at different points in its orbit. It is not really that hard to comprehend.

HINT - pay special attention to his 2nd law...

\Paul A

You poor thing,an intellectually impotent man is not a nice sight to
behold and that is not an insult,it is just the way things are.Are you
not going to rail against the new assertion that the Earth turned in
exactly 24 hours back in 1820 when you insist it turns once in 23
hours 56 minutes 04 second ?.

"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about
23 hours," says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA
Goddard. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or
86,400 standard seconds. " NASA


All you can do now is live with conceptual rot that the new crowd pay
no attention to and neither do I apart from demonstrating that the
stellar circumpolar error tries to circumvent the 24 hour system in
tandem with the Lat/Long system and an equatorial speed of 1037.5
miles per hour.You cannot expect me to entertain a person who cannot
equate one 24 hour cycle with one rotation of the Earth as it
represents an indoctrination that is so severe it may actually surpass
the unfortunate creationist ideology.A person who cannot reason out
the most immediate experience of a gorgeous 24 hour day and all its
effects arising from one rotation is already dead in their mind so
awakening people to the stable astronomical narrative becomes the sole
aim of what I do and where possible add new material which modern
imaging allows.

Sorry about your intellectual impotence and your inability to see that
things have changed and not for the better with the new spiel of the
Earth slowing down with assigning special significance to the year
1820.The opportunity is not to contend with the new mess but revisit
how the timekeeping systems were put together by brilliant people over
many thousands of years,people who knew what they were doing.

Again,if you are so certain that the Earth turns in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds then your issues are not with me but your own
empirical community who simply change their story and cobble together
whatever assertions they need to fit contemporary concerns..God help
you - truly.

"Bill Owen" wrote in message ...

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
It certainly is a hoax since it impossible to predict where the Earth
will be to a precision within its own diameter a year from now.

That statement was true 50 years ago, when we didn't know the length of
the AU to better than 0.1%, but no longer. Our knowledge of the current
position of the Earth is uncertain to a few meters. The uncertainty in
is velocity is on the order of meters per year.

================================================== =======
Rubbish.

Don't take my word for it.
==========================
I won't. You do not know the speed of light is relative to the source and
not a universal constant as your tin god claimed. ALL your measurements
are inaccurate. Your word is worthless, Compo, it impossible to predict
where the Earth will be to a precision within its own diameter a year from
now, and that is not even taking into a account the three-body problem
which can only be solve numerically. Don't take my word for it, carry on
believing what you cannot prove, based on a ridiculous assumption.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On Mar 7, 10:26*pm, oriel36 wrote:

I won't put you on the spot and ask you what reference do you use to
demonstrate that the Earth speeds up and slows down at different
points in its orbit,

But surely you know as well as I that it was Kepler who found that the
orbit of a planet is an ellipse, and planets sweep out equal areas in
equal times.

John Savard

On 08/03/2013 17:48, Quadibloc wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:26 pm, oriel36 wrote:

I won't put you on the spot and ask you what reference do you use to
demonstrate that the Earth speeds up and slows down at different
points in its orbit,

But surely you know as well as I that it was Kepler who found that the
orbit of a planet is an ellipse, and planets sweep out equal areas in
equal times.

John Savard

Which is actually a consequence of the fundamental laws of physics:
conservation of energy and angular momentum in an isolated system.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mar 8, 2:16*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:

Which is actually a consequence of the fundamental laws of physics:
conservation of energy and angular momentum in an isolated system.

True. But that's the part he _doesn't_ know, because he is wilfully
ignorant of such matters, claiming that this stuff all comes from
nasty old Newton's empirical agenda.

John Savard