Do I understand this correctly?

On Feb 6, 12:12*pm, maxwell wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:54*pm, oriel36 wrote:



On Feb 6, 3:25*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

.. .

On 2/5/11 2:44 AM, Tom Potter wrote:
Considering that my pal Sammy implies that he
is privy to the powerful General Relativity model
I trust that he will demonstrate how
General Relativity applies to a few useful, real-world situations,
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".

* Cranky Potter, Google canned
* Relativity he can not understand
* * At crank dot net
* * Registered, you bet
* His postings decay into swampland

I am saddened to see that my pal Sam Wormley
who claims to be a teacher on the public dole
and knowledgeable with the Relativity Models,
refuses to help folks "understand" Relativity
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".
using General Relativity.

As students of science history know,
soon after Newton introduced his "Model of the World",
England sent ships all over the world with standard pendulums
to measure the acceleration of gravity
( The Earth's mass affect on the period of the pendulums.)

and Newton used his primitive model
and hand calculated the mass of the Moon,
the shape of the Earth, and most importantly
to England, the tides in many places.

When you have a feel for astronomy, and that includes planetary
dynamics and its effects,a person can generally consider concepts on
their own merits whereas those who don't have that feel for what is
going *merely rearrange observations to suit themselves and come up
with conclusions which go from 'nice try but wrong' to outright
hilarious.It goes to show that impression of information can go badly
wrong if the recipient of that information is prone to accept facts
with thinking things through themselves and especially in empirical
circles which trend towards what is popular and sanctioned by peer
review rather than whether individuals find merit in the proposals
themselves.

What you are trying to express is found here -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

Newton throws around the 'periodic times' *term like confetti and
applies it to diurnal rotation no less hence the previous comment of
having no feel for astronomy and its methods.The periodic times is
strictly an orbital term *and reader must become familiar with its
exact usage as the original astronomers understood it -

'Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the center of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.'

Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this
is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler

It is so funny so see Newton do something which is common today,at
least in terms of desperately trying to force carbon dioxide as a sole
driver of global temperature variations or trying to force a
conclusion into the orbit of Mercury,he did it with pendulums -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

I could spend days correcting these things with modern imaging and
techniques,an individual pursuit which doesn't pander to any agenda
and simply because I can.That is the thing,it is not the large scale
direction of people blindly following others in some communal *and
lucrative pursuit,it is the sheer enjoyment and thrill of working
through things with confidence in giving greater outlines
here,removing obstacles there and things like that so there is no
fretting about some agenda imposed from the outside but the
development of a deeper,clearer and streamlined view that you seem
intent in denying yourselves.

Newton was an enemy of genuine empiricism,in his greed he robbed a
genuine approach to cause and effect of its value by imposing
analogies directly on to astronomical insights and methods that did
not belong to him,you are followers of that greed but do not have to
live with it.

Please continue to edify we few students of the history of physics.
You provide "we happy few" with valuable information. *Thank you.

ditto!

On Feb 13, 1:18*am, oriel36 wrote:

Dear Oriel 36: You might have been right, if the Earth was all
oceans, and the longitude lines didn't cut planes through the Earth.
Your idea requires that the equator move through... "a day" faster
than the higher latitudes. But, realize, fellow, that that doesn't
happen. You are a nice enough guy, but with terrible spatial
visualization. — NoEinstein —

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.

On Feb 13, 12:51*pm, John Gogo wrote:
On Feb 6, 12:12*pm, maxwell wrote:









On Feb 5, 11:54*pm, oriel36 wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:25*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

.. .

On 2/5/11 2:44 AM, Tom Potter wrote:
Considering that my pal Sammy implies that he
is privy to the powerful General Relativity model
I trust that he will demonstrate how
General Relativity applies to a few useful, real-world situations,
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".

* Cranky Potter, Google canned
* Relativity he can not understand
* * At crank dot net
* * Registered, you bet
* His postings decay into swampland

I am saddened to see that my pal Sam Wormley
who claims to be a teacher on the public dole
and knowledgeable with the Relativity Models,
refuses to help folks "understand" Relativity
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".
using General Relativity.

As students of science history know,
soon after Newton introduced his "Model of the World",
England sent ships all over the world with standard pendulums
to measure the acceleration of gravity
( The Earth's mass affect on the period of the pendulums.)

and Newton used his primitive model
and hand calculated the mass of the Moon,
the shape of the Earth, and most importantly
to England, the tides in many places.

When you have a feel for astronomy, and that includes planetary
dynamics and its effects,a person can generally consider concepts on
their own merits whereas those who don't have that feel for what is
going *merely rearrange observations to suit themselves and come up
with conclusions which go from 'nice try but wrong' to outright
hilarious.It goes to show that impression of information can go badly
wrong if the recipient of that information is prone to accept facts
with thinking things through themselves and especially in empirical
circles which trend towards what is popular and sanctioned by peer
review rather than whether individuals find merit in the proposals
themselves.

What you are trying to express is found here -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

Newton throws around the 'periodic times' *term like confetti and
applies it to diurnal rotation no less hence the previous comment of
having no feel for astronomy and its methods.The periodic times is
strictly an orbital term *and reader must become familiar with its
exact usage as the original astronomers understood it -

'Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the center of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.'

Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this
is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler

It is so funny so see Newton do something which is common today,at
least in terms of desperately trying to force carbon dioxide as a sole
driver of global temperature variations or trying to force a
conclusion into the orbit of Mercury,he did it with pendulums -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

I could spend days correcting these things with modern imaging and
techniques,an individual pursuit which doesn't pander to any agenda
and simply because I can.That is the thing,it is not the large scale
direction of people blindly following others in some communal *and
lucrative pursuit,it is the sheer enjoyment and thrill of working
through things with confidence in giving greater outlines
here,removing obstacles there and things like that so there is no
fretting about some agenda imposed from the outside but the
development of a deeper,clearer and streamlined view that you seem
intent in denying yourselves.

Newton was an enemy of genuine empiricism,in his greed he robbed a
genuine approach to cause and effect of its value by imposing
analogies directly on to astronomical insights and methods that did
not belong to him,you are followers of that greed but do not have to
live with it.

Please continue to edify we few students of the history of physics.
You provide "we happy few" with valuable information. *Thank you.

ditto!

Whatever make you happy, John. — NoEinstein —

"John Gogo" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 12:12 pm, maxwell wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:54 pm, oriel36 wrote:



On Feb 6, 3:25 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

.. .

On 2/5/11 2:44 AM, Tom Potter wrote:
Considering that my pal Sammy implies that he
is privy to the powerful General Relativity model
I trust that he will demonstrate how
General Relativity applies to a few useful, real-world situations,
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".

Cranky Potter, Google canned
Relativity he can not understand
At crank dot net
Registered, you bet
His postings decay into swampland

I am saddened to see that my pal Sam Wormley
who claims to be a teacher on the public dole
and knowledgeable with the Relativity Models,
refuses to help folks "understand" Relativity
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".
using General Relativity.

As students of science history know,
soon after Newton introduced his "Model of the World",
England sent ships all over the world with standard pendulums
to measure the acceleration of gravity
( The Earth's mass affect on the period of the pendulums.)

and Newton used his primitive model
and hand calculated the mass of the Moon,
the shape of the Earth, and most importantly
to England, the tides in many places.

When you have a feel for astronomy, and that includes planetary
dynamics and its effects,a person can generally consider concepts on
their own merits whereas those who don't have that feel for what is
going merely rearrange observations to suit themselves and come up
with conclusions which go from 'nice try but wrong' to outright
hilarious.It goes to show that impression of information can go badly
wrong if the recipient of that information is prone to accept facts
with thinking things through themselves and especially in empirical
circles which trend towards what is popular and sanctioned by peer
review rather than whether individuals find merit in the proposals
themselves.

What you are trying to express is found here -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

Newton throws around the 'periodic times' term like confetti and
applies it to diurnal rotation no less hence the previous comment of
having no feel for astronomy and its methods.The periodic times is
strictly an orbital term and reader must become familiar with its
exact usage as the original astronomers understood it -

'Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the center of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.'

Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this
is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler

It is so funny so see Newton do something which is common today,at
least in terms of desperately trying to force carbon dioxide as a sole
driver of global temperature variations or trying to force a
conclusion into the orbit of Mercury,he did it with pendulums -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

I could spend days correcting these things with modern imaging and
techniques,an individual pursuit which doesn't pander to any agenda
and simply because I can.That is the thing,it is not the large scale
direction of people blindly following others in some communal and
lucrative pursuit,it is the sheer enjoyment and thrill of working
through things with confidence in giving greater outlines
here,removing obstacles there and things like that so there is no
fretting about some agenda imposed from the outside but the
development of a deeper,clearer and streamlined view that you seem
intent in denying yourselves.

Newton was an enemy of genuine empiricism,in his greed he robbed a
genuine approach to cause and effect of its value by imposing
analogies directly on to astronomical insights and methods that did
not belong to him,you are followers of that greed but do not have to
live with it.

Please continue to edify we few students of the history of physics.
You provide "we happy few" with valuable information. Thank you.

ditto!

Thanks to my pals "John Gogo" and oriel36
for calling attention to Newton's explanation
of how he used his model and simple geometry and logic
to compute the shape of the Earth,
the tides in many places, and details about the Moon and planets.

As can be seen,
although members of the Relativity Cult
pretend to possess powerful, esoteric knowledge,
none of them have the ability to duplicate
any of the computations that Newton did
using his model and hand calculations.

If Relativity is such a powerful model and tool,
with modern computers and cook book algorithms,
it should be a piece of cake to dulplicate Newton's results.

Of course, it may be that Relativity is a Tower of Babel
that uses rubber clocks and rulers
and wastes time, money and minds
on such things as time travel, worm holes, etc.

A mind is a terrble thing to waste.


--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://www.prioritize.biz/
http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtml
http://xrl.in/63g4
http://www.tompotter.us
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

On Feb 14, 4:52*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Feb 13, 1:18*am, oriel36 wrote:

Dear Oriel 36: *You might have been right, if the Earth was all
oceans, and the longitude lines didn't cut planes through the Earth.
Your idea requires that the equator move through... "a day" faster
than the higher latitudes. *But, realize, fellow, that that doesn't
happen. *You are a nice enough guy, but with terrible spatial
visualization. *— NoEinstein —









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.

There is a lovely history to the Longitude story which involves using
the average 24 hour day and the steady progression of these days to
substitute for steady daily rotation at 1 degree for every 4
minutes,the best explanation is by John Harrison himself who was
basically a one man version of NASA -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roA...emarks&f=false

Of course any reader can look at daily rotation separately to the
orbital motion of the Earth and work through the details and
especially using cause and effect where twilight lengths correlate
with latitudinal speeds,it does not require any more than some common
sense before moving on to more complex issues like the seasons which
require orbital inputs and so on.

There is so much work to do for those who spot the convergence between
contemporary imaging power,the internet and things like that but it
can't happen in a forum where participants are willing to put words in
my mouth just to score points for themselves and there I leave it.

On 2/14/11 1:36 AM, Tom Potter wrote:

Thanks to my pals "John Gogo" and oriel36
for calling attention to Newton's explanation
of how he used his model and simple geometry and logic
to compute the shape of the Earth,
the tides in many places, and details about the Moon and planets.

As can be seen,
although members of the Relativity Cult
pretend to possess powerful, esoteric knowledge,
none of them have the ability to duplicate
any of the computations that Newton did
using his model and hand calculations.

If Relativity is such a powerful model and tool,
with modern computers and cook book algorithms,
it should be a piece of cake to dulplicate Newton's results.

Of course, it may be that Relativity is a Tower of Babel
that uses rubber clocks and rulers
and wastes time, money and minds
on such things as time travel, worm holes, etc.

A mind is a terrble thing to waste.


Potter blusters, froths and sometimes cries
Cannot compute tide's lows or highs
The only recognition Potter will get
is registration at crank dot net
Relativity he knows not when it applies

On Feb 14, 2:36*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"John Gogo" wrote in message
....
On Feb 6, 12:12 pm, maxwell wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:54 pm, oriel36 wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:25 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

.. .

On 2/5/11 2:44 AM, Tom Potter wrote:
Considering that my pal Sammy implies that he
is privy to the powerful General Relativity model
I trust that he will demonstrate how
General Relativity applies to a few useful, real-world situations,
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".

Cranky Potter, Google canned
Relativity he can not understand
At crank dot net
Registered, you bet
His postings decay into swampland

I am saddened to see that my pal Sam Wormley
who claims to be a teacher on the public dole
and knowledgeable with the Relativity Models,
refuses to help folks "understand" Relativity
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".
using General Relativity.

As students of science history know,
soon after Newton introduced his "Model of the World",
England sent ships all over the world with standard pendulums
to measure the acceleration of gravity
( The Earth's mass affect on the period of the pendulums.)

and Newton used his primitive model
and hand calculated the mass of the Moon,
the shape of the Earth, and most importantly
to England, the tides in many places.

When you have a feel for astronomy, and that includes planetary
dynamics and its effects,a person can generally consider concepts on
their own merits whereas those who don't have that feel for what is
going merely rearrange observations to suit themselves and come up
with conclusions which go from 'nice try but wrong' to outright
hilarious.It goes to show that impression of information can go badly
wrong if the recipient of that information is prone to accept facts
with thinking things through themselves and especially in empirical
circles which trend towards what is popular and sanctioned by peer
review rather than whether individuals find merit in the proposals
themselves.

What you are trying to express is found here -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

Newton throws around the 'periodic times' term like confetti and
applies it to diurnal rotation no less hence the previous comment of
having no feel for astronomy and its methods.The periodic times is
strictly an orbital term and reader must become familiar with its
exact usage as the original astronomers understood it -

'Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the center of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.'

Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this
is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler

It is so funny so see Newton do something which is common today,at
least in terms of desperately trying to force carbon dioxide as a sole
driver of global temperature variations or trying to force a
conclusion into the orbit of Mercury,he did it with pendulums -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

I could spend days correcting these things with modern imaging and
techniques,an individual pursuit which doesn't pander to any agenda
and simply because I can.That is the thing,it is not the large scale
direction of people blindly following others in some communal and
lucrative pursuit,it is the sheer enjoyment and thrill of working
through things with confidence in giving greater outlines
here,removing obstacles there and things like that so there is no
fretting about some agenda imposed from the outside but the
development of a deeper,clearer and streamlined view that you seem
intent in denying yourselves.

Newton was an enemy of genuine empiricism,in his greed he robbed a
genuine approach to cause and effect of its value by imposing
analogies directly on to astronomical insights and methods that did
not belong to him,you are followers of that greed but do not have to
live with it.

Please continue to edify we few students of the history of physics.
You provide "we happy few" with valuable information. Thank you.

ditto!

Thanks to my pals "John Gogo" and oriel36
for calling attention to Newton's explanation
of how he used his model and simple geometry and logic
to compute the shape of the Earth,
the tides in many places, and details about the Moon and planets.

As can be seen,
although members of the Relativity Cult
pretend to possess powerful, esoteric knowledge,
none of them have the ability to duplicate
any of *the computations that Newton did
using his model and hand calculations.

If Relativity is such a powerful model and tool,
with modern computers and cook book algorithms,
it should be a piece of cake to dulplicate Newton's results.

Of course, it may be

CORRECTION, Tom: "Relativity is the already FALLEN Tower of Babel!"
I knocked that structure down with my one-two punch! — NoEinstein —

that Relativity is a Tower of Babel
that uses rubber clocks and rulers
and wastes time, money and minds
on such things as time travel, worm holes, etc.

A mind is a terrble thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter
-----------------http://www.prioritize.biz/http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtmlhttp://xrl.in/63g4http://www.tompotter.ushttp://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

On Feb 14, 6:02*am, oriel36 wrote:

Dear Oriel 36: Coincidentally, the higher latitudes rotate slower,
but that has no cause-and-effect on twilight lengths. For the fourth
time, twilight length has to do with the available lines-of-sight to
the Sun over a curving Earth surface. You can duplicate the results
with a white globe tilted 23 degrees. It is that tilt that causes the
twilight variance. Its also why Alaska is dark for several months of
the year, and why the Sun never sets for several months of the year.
Have you ever heard of those "twilight" effects? — NoEinstein —

On Feb 14, 4:52*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Feb 13, 1:18*am, oriel36 wrote:

Dear Oriel 36: *You might have been right, if the Earth was all
oceans, and the longitude lines didn't cut planes through the Earth.
Your idea requires that the equator move through... "a day" faster
than the higher latitudes. *But, realize, fellow, that that doesn't
happen. *You are a nice enough guy, but with terrible spatial
visualization. *— NoEinstein —

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.

There is a lovely history to the Longitude story which involves using
the average 24 hour day and the steady progression of these days to
substitute for steady daily rotation at 1 degree for every 4
minutes,the best explanation is by John Harrison himself who was
basically a one man version of NASA -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roA...=remarks#v=one...

Of course any reader can look at daily rotation separately to the
orbital motion of the Earth and work through the details and
especially using cause and effect where twilight lengths correlate
with latitudinal speeds,it does not require any more than some common
sense before moving on to more complex issues like the seasons which
require orbital inputs and so on.

There is so much work to do for those who spot the convergence between
contemporary imaging power,the internet and things like that but it
can't happen in a forum where participants are willing to put words in
my mouth just to score points for themselves and there I leave it.

On Feb 14, 9:32*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

Sam Wormley is a won't-go-away idiot repeating his same shallow
nothings about science, over and over. — NE —

On 2/14/11 1:36 AM, Tom Potter wrote:

Thanks to my pals "John Gogo" and oriel36
for calling attention to Newton's explanation
of how he used his model and simple geometry and logic
to compute the shape of the Earth,
the tides in many places, and details about the Moon and planets.

As can be seen,
although members of the Relativity Cult
pretend to possess powerful, esoteric knowledge,
none of them have the ability to duplicate
any of *the computations that Newton did
using his model and hand calculations.

If Relativity is such a powerful model and tool,
with modern computers and cook book algorithms,
it should be a piece of cake to dulplicate Newton's results.

Of course, it may be that Relativity is a Tower of Babel
that uses rubber clocks and rulers
and wastes time, money and minds
on such things as time travel, worm holes, etc.

A mind is a terrble thing to waste.

* *Potter blusters, froths and sometimes cries
* *Cannot compute tide's lows or highs
* * * The only recognition Potter will get
* * * is registration at crank dot net
* *Relativity he knows not when it applies

On Feb 11, 11:26*am, Eric Gisse wrote:

Eric: I have designed, constructed and successfully tested two very
conclusive tests invalidating KE = 1/2mv^2. If you have any
experimental data that you suppose confirms that airhead equation,
make a fool of yourself and link to it. Ha, ha, HA! — NE —

On Feb 11, 8:17*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:49*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 2/10/11 10:49 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear Sam: *When one says "Gravitational Mass" the gravitation system
must be specified. *The convention is normally "near-Earth" gravity,
or anything below, say, five miles.

The Newtonian concept of gravitational mass rests on Newton's law of
gravitation. Let us suppose we have two objects A and B, separated by a
distance rAB. The law of gravitation states that if A and B have
gravitational masses MA and MB respectively, then each object exerts a
gravitational force on the other, of magnitude

* * * * *F = G M_A M_B / (R_AB)^2

where G is the universal gravitational constant. The above statement may
be reformulated in the following way: if g is the acceleration of a
reference mass at a given location in a gravitational field, then the
gravitational force on an object with gravitational mass M is

* * * * *F = Mg

This is the basis by which masses are determined by weighing. In simple
spring scales, for example, the force F is proportional to the
displacement of the spring beneath the weighing pan, as per Hooke's law,
and the scales are calibrated to take g into account, allowing the mass
M to be read off. A balance measures gravitational mass; only the spring
scale measures weight.

Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Ne...ational_mass_2

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. *But I
don't have the time, nor the experimental data, to define my New LUG
precisely. *— NE —

So if you don't have the experimental data, how have you determined a
single thing about gravitation?

As an aside, you spend a lot of time on USENET for someone who
"doesn't have the time".