A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Two dumb questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 11th 05, 06:45 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Friar Broccoli wrote:

It is my understanding that about 4 billion years ago the
moon was much closer to the earth than today (correct ?).
and as a result of bumping into dust/asteroids etc. it has
gradually lost energy and therefore moved AWAY from the
earth.


My intuition tells me that as the moon looses
energy/momentum it should be less able to resist earth's
gravity, and therefore move NEARER to the earth. Why is my
intuition wrong?


Others have answered this, but for a nice picture, look at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

Steve Carlip
  #12  
Old July 11th 05, 08:20 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message .com,
writes


OG wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
To Friar

To really appreciate what is happening beyond the illusion of sunset
and sunrise and equatorial orientation to the Sun it is best to order
things according to their correct properties.

First things first - the earth's axial orientation is more or less
constant over the course of a year,you can check this by the North star
Polaris -

http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg

As the Earth's polar axis is fixed to Polaris ,it follows that the
Earth's Equator at 90 degrees to the axis will also remain fixed -






http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/proj...quator-45s.gif

What causes the seasons is not axial tilt to the Sun or orbital plane
but the change orientation of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun,it
stands to reason as the Earth as a whole does not tilt (see Polaris) so
something else has to cause the illusion.

It was a decision by 17th/18th century cataloguers to furnish the
Earth with an axial tilt property to the Sun for their agenda in trying
to solve the Longitude problem and it will drive you insane if you are
not careful enough to escape the bluffing and blustering.


Gerald has not been driven insane, but he has lost the plot on this matter.
It is reasonable to ask what he means by this, but since he doesn't really
understand that the 'change orientation of the Earth' is caused by 'axial
tilt to the orbital plane', he has real problems in explaining himself.

If contradicted he tends to end up with abuse.


Not at all,the change in orbital orientation of the Earth can be
graphically represented against a fixed axial orientation.

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg


Hello again, idiot. That diagram has absolutely nothing to do with the
inclination of the Earth's axis. And the Earth's orbit is almost a
perfect circle - that diagram for beginners exaggerates the effect.
The seasons have absolutely nothing to do with the distance of the Earth
from the Sun - for instance, the Earth is closest in winter, when the
Northern hemisphere is experiencing winter.
But we've been here before and doubtless will be here again. Troll.
  #13  
Old July 12th 05, 02:01 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To Jonathan

Most diagrams expressing Kepler's second law are exaggerated to carry
the point but that one is useful for the addition feature of
demonstrating the change in orbital orientation of the Earth

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

The arrows at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line represent the point of
division where the Earth receives direct sunlight and where the Earth's
orbital shadow (night)

http://www.kuffner.org/james/gallery...flare_test.jpg

That shadow/light division changes in accordance with Kepler's second
law (see first diagram) thereby generating the Equation of Time
differential between the natural day and the 24 hour clock day and more
importantly seasonal variations from a global perspective rather than
the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions.

Btw, it is not at all difficult to adjust a few orientations and
motions to get a more satisfactory result and there is damn all I can
do about contemporary descriptions that are at 90 degrees to mine but
common sense will eventually prevail for most people recognise the
axial orientation and therefore Equatorial orientation remains constant
-

http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg

So the obvious mechanism for seasonal changes as a global description
is the changing orbital orientation of the Earth over the course of an
annual orbit.For the first heliocentrists this would be so easy to
comprehend and work with for their reasoning for a heliocentric system
is resolving retrograde motion by focusing on the orbital motion of the
Earth (thus infering heliocentricity) and I am just continuing in the
same manner.

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...turn_retro.gif

Rheticus

"With regard to the apparent motions of the Sun and Moon, it is
perhaps possible to deny what is said about the motion of the Earth,
although I do not see how the explanation of precession is to be
transferred to the sphere of the stars. But if anyone desires to look
either to the order and harmony of the system of the spheres, or to
ease and elegance and a complete explanation of the causes of the
phenomena, by no other hypotheses will he demonstrate more neatly and
correctly the apparent motions of the remaining planets. For all these
phenomena appear to be linked most nobly together, as by a golden
chain; and each of the planets, by its position and order and very
inequality of its motion, bears witness that the Earth moves. . . . "
1540, Narratio Prima


Do you see where he is working with indepedent motions and orientations
,well this is my astronomical heritage which was destroyed by the
cataloguers who fudged things for tying the celestial sphere to
terrestial longitudes and their particular mangling of the Equation of
Time.

Suit yourself,if you want to give the Earth a magic tilt property it
does not have then you will fit in with just about every contemporary
description for seasonal changes,there is another view but as I seem to
provoke these stupid responses I guess I will have to withdraw in
order for some decent person to affirm what I already know.

  #14  
Old July 12th 05, 11:18 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message .com,
writes

Most diagrams expressing Kepler's second law are exaggerated to carry
the point but that one is useful for the addition feature of
demonstrating the change in orbital orientation of the Earth

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

Change in orbital orientation? Relative to what? The Sun? The Milky Way?
It doesn't happen.

The arrows at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line represent the point of
division where the Earth receives direct sunlight and where the Earth's
orbital shadow (night)


So? It isn't exactly Nobel Prize material to say that the Earth is a
sphere, and the sunset line is at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line. You
do know that the Earth rotates? Perhaps not.


http://www.kuffner.org/james/gallery..._space/earth_l
ens_flare_test.jpg


What on Earth does that picture have to do with anything? It isn't even
accurate, as it shows the Earth and Moon with different phases.

For the first heliocentrists this would be so easy to
comprehend and work with for their reasoning for a heliocentric system
is resolving retrograde motion by focusing on the orbital motion of the
Earth (thus infering heliocentricity) and I am just continuing in the
same manner.

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...n_planets/jupi
ter_saturn_retro.gif


Here we go again :-) Yet again, there _is_ no retrograde motion as seen
from the Sun. Nice picture, though. And in the last 500 years astronomy
has advanced slightly from a purely heliocentric viewpoint :-)

Rheticus

"With regard to the apparent motions of the Sun and Moon, it is
perhaps possible to deny what is said about the motion of the Earth,
although I do not see how the explanation of precession is to be
transferred to the sphere of the stars.

snip

1540, Narratio Prima


You keep posting this, but I don't see what point you're making. Do you
know? What I find interesting is that Rheticus obviously has doubts
about the mechanism of precession.

but as I seem to
provoke these stupid responses I guess I will have to withdraw in
order for some decent person to affirm what I already know.


We wish :-) You'll be back, peddling the same monomaniac nonsense.
Sorry, but I'm not going to even try and be polite any more.
  #15  
Old July 13th 05, 12:01 AM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jonathan, I read your response but I think you
credit Gerald with too much understanding.

wrote in message
oups.com...
To Jonathan

....
That shadow/light division changes in accordance with Kepler's second
law (see first diagram) thereby generating the Equation of Time
differential between the natural day and the 24 hour clock day and more
importantly seasonal variations from a global perspective rather than
the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions.


Read that again: "seasonal variations from a global
perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer
hemispherical descriptions."

AFAICS, Gerald is saying that if it is summer in
the UK (as it is now, I know, I'm here), it is
also summer in Australia and the widely held
belief that they are six months out of phase is
erroneous! Maybe one of our antipodean contributors
could perform a scientific experiment and pop his
head out of the window to check for us :-)

Suit yourself,if you want to give the Earth a magic tilt property it
does not have then you will fit in with just about every contemporary
description for seasonal changes,there is another view but as I seem to
provoke these stupid responses I guess I will have to withdraw in
order for some decent person to affirm what I already know.


What you know is wrong Gerald, it is currently
summer in the UK but winter in Australia !

George

p.s. I'll try to find time to answer your other
posts soon though from the level of understanding
you exhibit above, there doesn't seem to be much
point.


  #16  
Old July 13th 05, 01:23 AM
Llanzlan Klazmon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"George Dishman" wrote in
:

Jonathan, I read your response but I think you
credit Gerald with too much understanding.

wrote in message
oups.com...
To Jonathan

...
That shadow/light division changes in accordance with Kepler's second
law (see first diagram) thereby generating the Equation of Time
differential between the natural day and the 24 hour clock day and
more importantly seasonal variations from a global perspective
rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions.


Read that again: "seasonal variations from a global
perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer
hemispherical descriptions."

AFAICS, Gerald is saying that if it is summer in
the UK (as it is now, I know, I'm here), it is
also summer in Australia and the widely held
belief that they are six months out of phase is
erroneous! Maybe one of our antipodean contributors
could perform a scientific experiment and pop his
head out of the window to check for us :-)


Just carried out your experiment. Definitely winter here and I'm not too
far from Australia. Looks like Gerald's hypothesis is empirically
disproved. Well who'da thought?

Klazmon.

SNIP
  #17  
Old July 13th 05, 08:17 AM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message
7.6...
"George Dishman" wrote in
:

Jonathan, I read your response but I think you
credit Gerald with too much understanding.

wrote in message
oups.com...
To Jonathan

...
That shadow/light division changes in accordance with Kepler's second
law (see first diagram) thereby generating the Equation of Time
differential between the natural day and the 24 hour clock day and
more importantly seasonal variations from a global perspective
rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions.


Read that again: "seasonal variations from a global
perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer
hemispherical descriptions."

AFAICS, Gerald is saying that if it is summer in
the UK (as it is now, I know, I'm here), it is
also summer in Australia and the widely held
belief that they are six months out of phase is
erroneous! Maybe one of our antipodean contributors
could perform a scientific experiment and pop his
head out of the window to check for us :-)


Just carried out your experiment. Definitely winter here and I'm not too
far from Australia. Looks like Gerald's hypothesis is empirically
disproved. Well who'da thought?


Marvellous, thank you Llanzlan. Can you
explain those two observations Gerald?

George


  #18  
Old July 13th 05, 04:36 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



George Dishman wrote:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message
7.6...
"George Dishman" wrote in
:

Jonathan, I read your response but I think you
credit Gerald with too much understanding.

wrote in message
oups.com...
To Jonathan
...
That shadow/light division changes in accordance with Kepler's second
law (see first diagram) thereby generating the Equation of Time
differential between the natural day and the 24 hour clock day and
more importantly seasonal variations from a global perspective
rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions.

Read that again: "seasonal variations from a global
perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer
hemispherical descriptions."

AFAICS, Gerald is saying that if it is summer in
the UK (as it is now, I know, I'm here), it is
also summer in Australia and the widely held
belief that they are six months out of phase is
erroneous! Maybe one of our antipodean contributors
could perform a scientific experiment and pop his
head out of the window to check for us :-)


Just carried out your experiment. Definitely winter here and I'm not too
far from Australia. Looks like Gerald's hypothesis is empirically
disproved. Well who'da thought?


Marvellous, thank you Llanzlan. Can you
explain those two observations Gerald?

George


Most people have enough common sense to realise that the Earth axial
orientation is constantly pointed towards Polaris therefore the Equator
at 90 degrees to the axis will also remain fixed.

http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg

The cause in seasonal changes from a global perspective is the change
in orbital orientation of the Earth to this fixed axial orientation and
it has nothing to do with any perceived tilt of the axis to the orbital
plane or to the Sun.

The politicians and most everyone else have noticed a climatic
imbalance or climate change as it is currently called,these same people
are faced with scientists who cannot even determine what causes the
natural seasonal variations for anyone who finds reason to argue with
me cannot consider themselves to be scientific in any way.

Some things cannot wait and I strongly suggest that decent and real men
start considering the change in orbital orientation of the Earth as the
standard for seasonal climatic variations for both hemispheres
simultaneously.You 3 empirical freaks can stick with variable axial
tilt to the orbital plane but since when did theorists ever produce
anything worthwhile.

  #19  
Old July 13th 05, 05:06 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To Klazmon

The Sun high against the Equator in the summer and low against the
Equator in winter is an illusion for the Earth's axial orientation is
fixed to Polaris as is the Equator at 90 degrees to the Earth's axis
therefore the Earth cannot tilt towards the Sun,away from the Sun or
indeed to the orbital plane.Apart from the precessional wobble there is
little that can be said for axial tilt accept that it does basically
nothing .

http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg

Common sense dictates that the orbital orientation of the Earth
designated by the division between daylight and the Earth's orbital
shadow changes against fixed axial orientation causing the seasons
within a global perspective.Splitting the Earth into hemispheres and
attributing an axial tilt variations that the Earth does not have is a
poor sign for humanity given the concern for climate imbalance.

Like the transfer of the pre-Copernican equablre 24 hour day by the
early heliocentrists to constant and indepedent axial rotation at 15
degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in total there is absolutely
nothing difficult with attributing the correct process that leads to
seasonal changes through changes in orbital orientation but the latter
is much more urgent,either way both are built on the correct
relationship between axial and orbital motion as opposed to the
Newtonian sidereal format.

It may be initially tricky to match the orientation of the Earth with
Polaris and keep it constant and allow orbital motion to affect the
seasonal changes but I see you 3 arguing to the contrary as
representative of your empirical cult and your thinking ,borrowed from
18th century caqtaloguers,is threatening the ability of people to act
on these matters such as climate change for if none of you can be
trusted with what causes seasonal changes you doctorates are not worthg
much.

I resent having to doing your jobs for you while receiving this hail of
childrish dithering in return.

  #20  
Old July 13th 05, 06:05 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To Jonathan

Change in orbital orientation to fixed axial orientation,in other words
the Earth's axis remains fixed as does its Equatorial orientation at 90
degrees to the polar axis and the Earth's orbital orientation to the
Sun causes seasonal changes.

This is not at all difficult and I assure you it is important for if
you cannot attribute the correct causes for seasonal change after 500
years of heliocentricity,it sure looks dumb in an era that wants more
information on climate change.

http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg

You and the other two guys are lazy and are relying on the maneuvering
of 18th century cataloguers and it shows in the way you attribute
causes for seasons using hemispherical terms and Equatorial
orientations to the Sun or orbital plane.

The actual cause is at roughly 90 degrees to the Equator and only at
the Equinoxes does the terrestial axial longitude run parallel with
orbital orientation which uses the daylight/orbital shadow line to
demarcate the change in orientation over an annual cycle.

So with obvious imbalances of climate upon us,if genuine investigators
who get paid to do their jobs wish to drop the nonsense and start
looking at things correctly,I ,you and everyone else will be better
served to make correct assements and judgements that affect future
generations.

Having the Earth tilt towards the Sun while knowing the following
orientation is fixed should spur somebody to start correcting things

http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg

The original heliocentrists worked off orbital motion of the Earth
alone to infer heliocentricity which is why I include the motion of the
Earth taking a faster and inner orbital circuit to Jupiter and Saturn
in order to get people used to the change in orbital orientation
passing through fixed axial orientation in generating seasonal changes
-

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...turn_retro.gif

The monomaniac stuff is all yours or rather Newton's inferior view of
how retrograde motion is explained in direct conflict with the early
heliocentrists such as Kepler and Galileo.

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances,"

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

The direct cause of a false attribution for seasonal changes is
directly related to that Newtonian rubbish for the early heliocentrists
recognised retrograde for what it was directly without appealing to a
resolution by placiong a sun based observer and anyone looking at the
motion of Jupiter and Saturn from an orbital perspective above can see
how the first heliocentrists infered the heliocentric sytstem without
that unethical framehopping jump to the Sun.

This is why in the 21st century I have to fight the heliocentric case
for seasonal changes by focusing on the Earth's orbital orientation
changes rather than being stuck with axial tilt variations derived
through 18th century cataloguers.

Who gives a damn who does this as long as a correct attribution to
seasonal changes is brought forward for consideration,you protect your
long dead celebrities but I have an eye of coontemporary policy and a
legacy that future generations might thank us for.But not before this
obvious error is rectified and fast.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Big dumb rockets vs. small dumb rockets Andrew Nowicki Policy 28 February 10th 05 01:55 AM
Dumb SS1 questions Henry Spencer Technology 23 July 9th 04 07:08 PM
Probably Dumb Questions John Research 49 May 6th 04 09:01 AM
A Couple of Dumb Dew-Heater Questions Craig Levine Amateur Astronomy 0 January 25th 04 03:25 AM
sub-amateur has dumb questions paul beard Amateur Astronomy 16 August 27th 03 10:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.