Do I understand this correctly?

On Feb 11, 12:18*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Wrong, Oriel: Except for minor increases in the angles of view of the
moon made possible by observing from very early (rising moon) or very
late (setting moon) —which are, also, the maximum east or maximum west
viewpoints—the "back side" of the moon wasn't visible until astronauts
orbited the moon. You should know that. — NoEinstein —

On Feb 11, 4:36*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Feb 10, 5:14*pm, oriel36 wrote:

On Feb 10, 9:05*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 2/10/11 2:14 PM, oriel36 wrote:

Sam,what did I tell you about the Fomalhaut system when it comes to
determining orbital periods with the distance from a star as the AU
represents a proportion of one orbital radius to one orbital
circumference,if you choose the Earth's proportions as a gauge for any
other planet in this solar system or any other you are obligated to
retain the proportions between distance from the star and its orbital
geometry -

* *Even though, Gerald, you deny that the Sun rotates,

Now,now Sam,the Sun has an uneven rotational gradient between
equatorial and polar coordinates so if you want a reaction,you can
forget it.

*that the

* *Moon rotates, that the earth rotates 366.24+ times per astronomical
* *year, the observations of the Fomalhaut system confirm Kepler's
* *third law.

The moon has no intrinsic rotation,a condition which requires
variations in latitudinal speeds...

If one looks down on the moving Earth-Moon system, the Moon indeed
rotates slowly on its axis.

If one looks down ,up ,out at or any angle an observer choses,they
will see all locations on the moon turn through its circle of
illumination at the same speed,it is not rocket science3,you look out
the window at the moon or an astronaut looks at the Earth from the
near side and can safely observe that the Earth stays in view
regardless of the orbital motion of the moon which creates the lunar
daylight/darkness cycle,full illumination when the Earth is between
the moon and the Sun and fully dark when the moon is between the Earth
and the Sun.

Here is what intrinsic rotation looks like from any angle,it has a
maximum equatorial speed reducing to zero at the polar coordinates and
you can even see the moon orbiting the Earth while having no intrinsic
rotation *-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s

The only thing I haven't tried on the Usenet to get important
astronomical matters discussed is to actually leave altogether and
that cuts but is perhaps a good thing.

*But the Moon keeps one face turned toward







the Earth, creating the illusion that the Moon must not be rotating.
— NoEinstein —

On Feb 11, 1:26*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

You're welcome, Sam! I'm holding my breath that you won't revert
to... type. — NE —

On 2/11/11 10:11 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:46 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 2/10/11 10:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Inertial mass only applies to objects being accelerated (or decelerated) at 'g' or greater.

"The term mass in special relativity usually refers to the rest mass of
the object, which is the Newtonian mass as measured by an observer
moving along with the object. The invariant mass is another name for the
rest mass of single particles. However, the more general invariant mass
(calculated with a more complicated formula) may also be applied to
systems of particles in relative motion, and because of this, is usually
reserved for systems which consist of widely separated high-energy
particles. The invariant mass of systems is the same for all observers
and inertial frames, and cannot be destroyed, and is thus conserved, so
long as the system is closed. In this case, "closure" implies that an
idealized boundary is drawn around the system, and no mass/energy is
allowed across it".

Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Ma...ial_relativity

Sam: *I don't disagree following just a quick scan. *Keep it up! * NE


* *Thank you, John.

On Feb 11, 1:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/11/11 10:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

If one looks down on the moving Earth-Moon system, the Moon indeed
rotates slowly on its axis. *But the Moon keeps one face turned toward
the Earth, creating the illusion that the Moon must not be rotating.
— NoEinstein —

* *Gerald has a lot of trouble with perspectives, such as you suggest,
* *John.

Sam: I'll toot-my-own-horn to explain that a big part of my reasoning
advantage in any discussion of science, engineering, or whatever, is
that I have very advanced talent for visualizing physical systems,
both static and moving. That ability is a requirement for becoming
an architect, but isn't required for becoming a physicist. My
mechanical aptitude is so high that I can hear a proposal for some
component of a device or a possible manufacturing process, and within
a minute or less I'll have a pretty good idea whether that proposal
will work. When I explain what I've reasoned—almost before the words
are off the lips of the proposer—people wrongly assume that I haven't
been "fair" enough to even consider what I just heard. I was that way
in high school, too. My senior annual personality tag-line said:
"John knows and knows he knows." I've never hesitated to explain what
I've figured out, because usually I am right. — NoEinstein —

On Feb 11, 1:31*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/11/11 10:17 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Sam: *Though your "walk-through" of Newton's LUG could be historical,
I have determined that gravity is not (directly) mass and distance
related, but photon (or charged particle) exchange related.

* *So how does that work for invisible binary companions with massed
* *that rule out white dwarfs, and neutron stars, since photons are
* *not involved in over any wavelengths from radio through x-rays?

Sam: The photons being exchanged can be in the extreme infrared end of
the spectrum. Binary stars are actually exchanging radiant energy.
That means that the "facing sides" aren't as depleted in ether as the
opposed sides. "Hobo ether” is being sent back into space between the
photons being emitted. But since the facing sides are less depleted
in ether than the opposed sides, there will be more "downward" ether
"rain", that is gravity, on the opposed sides. That gravity force
holds the binary stars together, gravitationally. But the force is
PUSHES from the back sides, not "pulls", as most have wrongly assumed
the force of gravity to be. — NoEinstein —

On Feb 11, 1:33*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

Sam: Your clipped quotes are close to correct, except for the
shoehorning of "relativity" and its effects on mass and energy. Since
I have disproved SR, I have also disproved space-time and all of the
garbage associated with that. Velocity and acceleration have zero
effect of the mass (or matter) of any system. KE, which is closely
akin to momentum, does increase, LINEARLY, with increasing velocity.
But that process does NOT increase the matter, mass, atoms, or inertia
of the moving body! — NoEinstein —

On 2/11/11 5:01 AM, Tom Potter wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
.. .
On 2/10/11 3:15 AM, Tom Potter wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 2/8/11 2:57 PM, Chris wrote:
Do you know what mass is Sam Wormly? I don't!

* Potter plays in a pile of mass
* Came from Pappy's horse's ass
* * Gravitational mass
* * Or inertial mass
* Must be equivalent said Newton, alas

My pal Sam Wormley raises a good point
when he calls attention to the fact
that Einstein

first made a big deal about mass changing
with velocity,

* Correction, Potter -- The mass doesn't change, but the
* "Measured" mass by an observer in relative motion does
* increase. Such increased must be taken into account to
* design working particle accelerators.

I am pleased to see that my pal Sam Wormley is beginning to comprehend
that mass is the same for all observers

* *Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Ma...ial_relativity

"The term mass in special relativity usually refers to the rest mass of
the object, which is the Newtonian mass as measured by an observer
moving along with the object. The invariant mass is another name for the
rest mass of single particles. However, the more general invariant mass
(calculated with a more complicated formula) may also be applied to
systems of particles in relative motion, and because of this, is usually
reserved for systems which consist of widely separated high-energy
particles. The invariant mass of systems is the same for all observers
and inertial frames, and cannot be destroyed, and is thus conserved, so
long as the system is closed. In this case, "closure" implies that an
idealized boundary is drawn around the system, and no mass/energy is
allowed across it.

"In as much as energy is conserved in closed systems in relativity, the
mass of a system is also a quantity which is conserved: this means it
does not change over time, even as some types of particles are converted
to others. For any given observer, the mass of any system is separately
conserved and cannot change over time, just as energy is separately
conserved and cannot change over time. The incorrect popular idea that
mass may be converted to (massless) energy in relativity is because some
matter particles may in some cases be converted to types of energy which
are not matter (such as light, kinetic energy, and the potential energy
in magnetic, electric, and other fields). However, this confuses
"matter" (a non-conserved and ill-defined thing) with mass (which is
well-defined and is conserved). Even if not considered "matter," all
types of energy still continue to exhibit mass in relativity. Thus, mass
and energy do not change into one another in relativity; rather, both
are names for the same thing, and neither mass nor energy appear without
the other. "Matter" particles may not be conserved in reactions in
relativity, but closed-system mass always is".

There is a human tragedy going on like nothing the world has ever seen
before and in order to put the view of empiricists and their
ideologies in perspective I have search through the annals of history
from the holocausts to scientific hoaxes to financial scams and all of
them are only minor to the one which our generation and future
generations face.

As an astronomer I have been through the technical issues from the
original insights of geocentric astronomers to their counterparts who
created the reasons for the daily and orbital motions of the Earth,I
have looked how timekeeping astronomy had linked up with invention and
adventure and I have watched the rise of Royal Society empiricism
which attempts to introduce a mechanical view of the Universe and how
it went badly astray and,with the no center/no circumference
ideologies,have reached a point where the fraud can no longer be
sustained.

It happens that when a reader is under the influence of one who is
perceived to be an authority,they can continue to believe in the
direction of that person long after common sense should intervene and
the idea of intrinsic lunar rotation has to be a point along with many
others where unreasonableness shades off into something worse yet
because Newton said it,it is still believed without objection -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...page&q&f=false

The toxic strain of late 17th century empiricism started out as an
ideal that seemed to obliterate the need for astronomical
interpretation by drawing on experimental analogies and applying them
directly to celestial observations,the way it was originally done was
every bit as creative as any other hoax or fraud,the fact that it is a
fraud with very systematic distortions and manipulations to maintain
the deceit means it can be understood and resolved by those who must
have some sense of responsibility to themselves and future generations
rather than those who are simply part of the process itself or get cut
to pieces.

I can't imagine what it must take to believe the moon has an intrinsic
rotation but then again this particular kool aid is particularly
disconcerting,not by virtue of any validity for the possibility of
infering lunar rotation is zero,it is the sheer number of people will
to believe the moon rotates for no other reason than Isaac said so.I
bear the responsibility of going through the technical details which
constitute a breach of basic facts that separate a person who can
think things through as opposed to those who constantly need guidance
from others they perceived to be authoritative and acting in their
best interests yet it does not boil down to technical issues at the
end of it all but rather,why would a group of people who can obviously
reason things through not act in a responsible if not courageous way.

On Feb 11, 1:40*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Feb 11, 6:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 2/11/11 10:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

If one looks down on the moving Earth-Moon system, the Moon indeed
rotates slowly on its axis. *But the Moon keeps one face turned toward
the Earth, creating the illusion that the Moon must not be rotating.
— NoEinstein —

* *Gerald has a lot of trouble with perspectives, such as you suggest,
* *John.

I have trouble only with how any of you can do it,I mean,the
possibility of intrinsic lunar rotation is zero whereas the Earth has
a maximum equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour reducing to zero
at the polar coordinates hence the day/night cycle and why twilights
are longer as rotation speeds diminish away from the equator.

Oriel: The twilights are longer at higher latitudes because the
angles of the sunlight are lower in the sky, and the tilt of the Earth
on its axis reduces the time available for having direct lines-of
sight to the Sun. That has absolutely nothing to do with "rotational
speeds"! Find yourself another hobby. Your aptitude for science just
isn't there. — NE —

The Earth does not keep the same face to the Sun so that all
locations,imitating the polar coordinates where rotation is residual
or absent,experiences a single daylight/darkness cycle coincident with
the orbital period of the Earth,I had this insight repeated back to me
as trivia over the last year in contrast to the sense of dignity which
arises from modifying the original explanation for the seasons which
ignores this singular orbital daylight/darkness cycle.

Presently the link between science and intelligence in astronomical
and terrestrial sciences has become myth,it has to given what many of
you believe as it takes no effort to imitate the moon's orbital
circuit of the Earth by walking around a central object and concluding
orbital motion and nothing else.

I would say if humanity finds itself out of the toxic strain of
empiricism which has lasted for a few centuries,you and your
colleagues will be known as the 'people of the expanding past and no
future' through the no center/no circumference ideology of big bang,an
amazing situation that is only surpassed by the facts that it is
real,it is dominant and is a living nightmare for everyone who values
the continuity between past and future and their own intelligence.

On Feb 11, 1:45*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/11/11 12:40 PM, oriel36 wrote:

I have trouble only with how any of you can do it,I mean,the
possibility of intrinsic lunar rotation is zero

* *Rotation is absolute in this universe. Most bodies have some
* *intrinsic rotation including the measured rotation rates of the
* *sun, moon and earth.

* *Sun * * *24.47 days
* *Earth * *23 hr 56 min 4.1 sec
* *Moon * * 27.321582 days

Sam: The only close to absolute rotation velocity in the Universe is
the 'c' velocity of the IOTAs that compose the ether. The Earth and
the moon are slightly changing rotational velocity every year. That's
why we have "leap" years, minutes, and seconds. — NE —

On Feb 11, 2:59*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Feb 11, 7:51*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:









On 2/11/11 1:40 PM, oriel36 wrote:

On Feb 11, 6:45 pm, Sam *wrote:

* * Rotation is absolute in this universe. Most bodies have some
* * intrinsic rotation including the measured rotation rates of the
* * sun, moon and earth.

* * Sun * * *24.47 days
* * Earth * *23 hr 56 min 4.1 sec
* * Moon * * 27.321582 days

Astronomers indeed !,it is an unenviable situation where I am looking
to find sane individuals who can openly interpret a basic observation
of lunar orbital motion of the Earth but find only people who believe
in lunar rotation.

* *I think there is a good reason for that, Gerald, as the moon's
* *axial rotation period is 27.321582 days.

I would say that when you reach a level where you conclude the moon
rotates,there is nothing left to say as it is the one celestial object
that orbits the Earth and the possibility of intrinsic lunar rotation
is zero.

You can merrily promote a rotating moon whereas I see nothing more
than people who can manage to remain silent hence it is not a
technical issue relating to the moon but an issue reflecting a lack of
intelligence and interpretative skills that the world has not seen
before.

I wouldn't know what to say to anyone here any longer and that is the
truth.

Oriel 36: Repeating the same mistake will never correct your error in
visualization of moving systems. — NE —

On Feb 12, 11:33*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Feb 11, 1:40*pm, oriel36 wrote:







On Feb 11, 6:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 2/11/11 10:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

If one looks down on the moving Earth-Moon system, the Moon indeed
rotates slowly on its axis. *But the Moon keeps one face turned toward
the Earth, creating the illusion that the Moon must not be rotating..
— NoEinstein —

* *Gerald has a lot of trouble with perspectives, such as you suggest,
* *John.

I have trouble only with how any of you can do it,I mean,the
possibility of intrinsic lunar rotation is zero whereas the Earth has
a maximum equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour reducing to zero
at the polar coordinates hence the day/night cycle and why twilights
are longer as rotation speeds diminish away from the equator.

Oriel: *The twilights are longer at higher latitudes because the
angles of the sunlight are lower in the sky, and the tilt of the Earth
on its axis reduces the time available for having direct lines-of
sight to the Sun. *That has absolutely nothing to do with "rotational
speeds"!

I look at this and shake my head as it is probably the most basic
cause and effect of all as an observer at the the equator entering and
exiting the circle of illumination at 1037.5 miles per hour will see
the transition from daylight to darkness much quicker than observers
towards the geographical poles as rotational speeds reduce hence
twilight lengths,at least due to daily rotation become longer in
correlating with slower rotational speeds.The fact that the Earth
turns 1037.5 miles per hour at the equator and its full 24901 mile
circumference is even beyond empiricists as they assign the wrong
rotational value for the Earth.

The Earth has also a separate daylight/darkness cycle arising solely
from the orbital motion of the Earth hence the polar twilight at the
Equinoxes as those coordinates turn through the circle of illumination
and dividing 6 months of darkness from 6 months of daylight depending
on where the planet is in its orbit.

The merit system being screwed up,the introduction of an additional
orbital component through the orbital daylight/darkness cycle is left
to drift even though the insight is incontrovertible,a basic effect of
daylight turning to darkness using a 360 degree rotation to the Sun
that is coincident with the orbital period of the planet and something
which can be extracted from direct observations of Uranus and an
imitation analogy -

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

Satellites in a Sun-synchronous orbit pick up the slow and uneven
orbital turning to the Sun as the Earth turns about an axis stretching
through the center of the Earth from Arctic to Antarctic circles or a
line 23 1/3 degrees in line with the circle of illumination whereas
that axis on Uranus is close to 90 degrees and in line with its circle
of illumination hence the equatorial rings act as a kind of orbital
longitude meridian for its orbital turning to the Sun as opposed to
its daily rotation which is almost orthogonal to that turning.The two
separate motions to the Sun are even more striking with Hubble -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/11/video/b/

So,the Earth has a single daylight/darkness cycle separate to daily
rotation and from an axis that is not linked to right ascension and
the merit system being what it is,there is no organization,not even
NASA who would have picked up that orbital turning beneath its
satellites but assign the wrong cause to this 'nodal
precession'.Twilight at the polar coordinates is therefore an orbital
event where those locations turn through the circle of illumination
and here in the 21st century,it is nearly impossible to find people
who actually like this basic astronomical fact and something which is
crucial for understanding the seasons and the variations in the
natural noon cycle when allied with daily rotation.