Yes Oriel, the Earth does rotate on its axis

On Aug 2, 1:10*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Uncarollo2" *wrote in message

...

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1208...24Schwartz.jpg

================================================== ==
If it didn't rotate on its axis it wouldn't have an axis.

It could oscillate on its axis the way a spring and mass do.

On Aug 2, 1:35*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:10:28 GMT, Skywise
wrote:

Oriel is nothing more than a troll.

Even when you happen to agree with part of something he says...

If you find yourself actually understanding something he says well
enough to agree with it, you should be worried. Very worried.

There is nothing to understand. The lack of any smidgen of logic, the
run-on sentences and poor grammar indicate that Oriel is a computer
program, not a human. It is automatic. Every response by "Oriel" is
long winded and contains lots of what is known in the trade as
****slides.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:10:28 GMT, Skywise
wrote:

Oriel is nothing more than a troll.

Even when you happen to agree with part of something he says...

If you find yourself actually understanding something he says well
enough to agree with it, you should be worried. Very worried.

To clarify, at one point he described the Earth rotating 360
degrees in 24 hours relative to the Sun, to which I agreed
was correct, "for a Solar Day."

So he was correct in that description, but took offence at
the qualification that it only applied to the Solar Day.

It may have been a fluke.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Androcles" wrote in :

Autism is a lifelong developmental disability...

I am familiar with the Autistic spectrum.

Just my opinion, but he doesn't strike me as being on the spectrum.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote:

There is nothing to understand. The lack of any smidgen of logic, the
run-on sentences and poor grammar indicate that Oriel is a computer
program, not a human. It is automatic. Every response by "Oriel" is
long winded and contains lots of what is known in the trade as
****slides.

I used to believe that, but I had occasion to meet him in person.
There are mental illnesses that manifest in computer-like
communications styles.

"Skywise" wrote in message ...

"Androcles" wrote in :

Autism is a lifelong developmental disability...

I am familiar with the Autistic spectrum.

Just my opinion, but he doesn't strike me as being on the spectrum.

Brian
--

I've been familiar with Kelleher's posts for over 10 years, and yes, he's
abrasive and annoying, but he's simply not capable of understanding
the earth revolves 361 degrees in 24 hours, relative to the rest of the
universe, or that leap days are approximations and not integers every
four years. It's beyond his mental capability. He's not a troll, but don't
imagine you can teach him either because his disability is lifelong. If
that isn't autism then give it whatever name you want, but it isn't
trollism either as he has no malicious intent. He's just trying to
communicate his frustration at what he sees as the rest of the world's
stupidity, when it is blindingly obvious to him that the Earth revolves
360 degrees in 24 hours... and it does, relative to the Sun. He isn't the
first to fail to understand relative motion, the autistic Einstein wanted to
make a special case for light in much the same way by adjusting time.
Why shouldn't Kelleher's 24 hours in 360 degrees relative to the Sun
be a time dilation of the sidereal 24 hours?
Of course that would be nonsense, but it is not nonsense if the troll
Einstein scrawls it in some inequation you don't understand, is it?
1/2[tau{0,0,0,t}+tau{0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)}] = tau{x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)}
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Just my opinion, but you strike me as an intolerant snipping bigot who
thinks he knows it all.
Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and they all stink
except your own, don't they? Keep your opinions to yourself and
only post what you can back up with empirical evidence.

-- Androcles

"Uncarollo2" wrote in message
...

On Aug 2, 1:10 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Uncarollo2" wrote in message

...

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1208...24Schwartz.jpg

================================================== ==
If it didn't rotate on its axis it wouldn't have an axis.

It could oscillate on its axis the way a spring and mass do.
================================================== ========
It could pitch, roll and yaw like a ship at sea and then it would
have three axes, but if it didn't it would have none. The oscillating
spring and mass has no axis, you can draw any number of parallel
lines (a field) representing the motion of a beam attached to two
springs, but none would be the axis.
())) | ---
())) | ---

( ) ) ) | ---
( ) ) ) | ---

())) | ---
())) | ---

"Uncarollo2" wrote in message
...

On Aug 2, 12:25 pm, Uncarollo2 wrote:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1208...24Schwartz.jpg

Image was taken at the exact south pole

=================================
Fish eye lens distorts the buildings, therefore a contrivance as fish eye
lenses are not used in serious astronomy.
Could have been taken within a few seconds exposure by a rotating
camera, anywhere in the world.
Not proof of Earth's rotation without the photographer's affidavit that
the camera was fixed to the Earth. Do you have the affidavit? If not
your evidential exhibit is hearsay and inadmissible in a court of science
(or law). I'll accept it as proof of Earth's rotation if you can provide the
photographer's signed affidavit and/or a written paper suitable for
publication, or he/she testifies under oath. If you are the photographer
then I congratulate you, otherwise I must regrettably reject as a
contrivance designed as a hoax. It is horribly pixelated and highly
suspicious, definitely the work of an amateur (which perhaps makes it
suitable for sci.astro.amateur musings).

"Androcles" wrote in message ...



"Uncarollo2" wrote in message
...

On Aug 2, 12:25 pm, Uncarollo2 wrote:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1208...24Schwartz.jpg

Image was taken at the exact south pole

=================================
Fish eye lens distorts the buildings, therefore a contrivance as fish eye
lenses are not used in serious astronomy.
Could have been taken within a few seconds exposure by a rotating
camera, anywhere in the world.
Not proof of Earth's rotation without the photographer's affidavit that
the camera was fixed to the Earth. Do you have the affidavit? If not
your evidential exhibit is hearsay and inadmissible in a court of science
(or law). I'll accept it as proof of Earth's rotation if you can provide the
photographer's signed affidavit and/or a written paper suitable for
publication, or he/she testifies under oath. If you are the photographer
then I congratulate you, otherwise I must regrettably reject as a
contrivance designed as a hoax. It is horribly pixelated and highly
suspicious, definitely the work of an amateur (which perhaps makes it
suitable for sci.astro.amateur musings).
=======================================
Upon closer inspection one notices that either the stars are all rapid
cepheids or the multiple rotated negative is superimposed on a copy
of itself. It is definitely a fake designed to uphold Galileo and
Copernicus
and condemn Ptolemy's wonderful theory od a stationary Earth, a
government conspiracy by its lap dog, NASA, and probably made on
a Hollywood sound stage.

On Aug 2, 11:40*am, oriel36 wrote:

You look at stellar circumpolar motion and conclude that each
consecutive return of a star equates to one rotation

Yes. Because, except for _very_ slight deviations that can be
explained (angular momentum transfer to seasonal winds), the
consecutive returns of a star have been observed to take place at
exactly equal intervals of about 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

As you know, the solar day, on the other hand, reflects the Equation
of Time. So, if we were to claim that the Earth's rotation takes 24
hours, either we refer that rotation to a direction which dances
around the Sun in a path shaped like the analemma, or we have the
Earth's rotation regularly speeding up and slowing down over the
course of a year to compensate for the Earth's elliptical (and
inclined, relative to the Equator) orbit.

It doesn't make sense to duplicate phenomena caused by the nature of
the Earth's orbit in its rotation; that essentially means defining a
compound motion, rather than a simple motion, as the Earth's rotation.

If we were willing to handle the Earth's rotation that way, we would
not need Copernicus - we could have let the other planets keep their
epicycles, if compound motions are just as good as simple motions.

John Savard