Early next week, a large asteroid...

In article ,
oriel36 wrote:
the Equatorial speed of the Earth is
1037.5 miles an hour

Relative to what?

Pick a point on the earth's equator. A woman standing on that point
measures its speed as zero MPH. An observer standing on the surface
of the moon measures its speed as much higher. An observer orbiting
Proxina Centauri would report it as something completely different.

Talking about "the equatorial speed of the earth" is meaningless
until you tell us what you're measuring it against.

--
David Goldfarb |"'The truth will set you free.'
| If you love the truth, you'll inevitably
| come back!" -- Hitherby Dragons

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 8:15:02 AM UTC, David Goldfarb wrote:
In article ,
oriel36 wrote:
the Equatorial speed of the Earth is
1037.5 miles an hour

Relative to what?


A cult mentality abhors common sense hence your question circumvents the experience of your body as one 24 hour day and one rotation so it is not a question you ask but rather a condition you have that prevents you from appreciating how the average 24 hour day substitutes for constant rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour using a quirk of language where 'average' runs parallel with 'constant'.

Any person who wishes to discuss rotation relative to something has the orbital circumference and the primary gauge for timekeeping with special attention to the February 29th rotation with context of 4 orbital circumferences and four trips of the Earth around the Sun.

Your cult still proposes 1465 rotations within these 4 orbital circuits extrapolated from being mesmerized by a watch and stellar circumpolar motion -

"During one orbit around the Sun, Earth rotates about its own axis 366.26 times" Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

The pathways to human timekeeping via the planetary cycles are fairly straightforward but when a person refuses to accept what their body experiences as one rotation and one 24 hour day then they will know whether they are intellectually free or part of a disruptive cult.

"David Goldfarb" wrote in message ...

In article ,
oriel36 wrote:
the Equatorial speed of the Earth is
1037.5 miles an hour

Relative to what?

Pick a point on the earth's equator. A woman standing on that point
measures its speed as zero MPH. An observer standing on the surface
of the moon measures its speed as much higher. An observer orbiting
Proxina Centauri would report it as something completely different.

Talking about "the equatorial speed of the earth" is meaningless
until you tell us what you're measuring it against.

Relative motion means nothing to Kelleher. He claims the Moon doesn't rotate
on its own axis because it always faces the Earth.
But then, what does it rotate relative to except Newton's absolute space in
which the fixed stars also move. Water climbs the sides of the rotating
bucket because it has a bottom with gravity drawing it down, and that
perplexes many because down is a local direction only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

-- Pastor Ravi Holy of Ghetti Spa, Los Agña, Santa Gria
ria
Je suis charlie!

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 9:59:02 AM UTC, Lord Androcles wrote:
"David Goldfarb" wrote in message ...

In article ,
oriel36 wrote:
the Equatorial speed of the Earth is
1037.5 miles an hour

Relative to what?

Pick a point on the earth's equator. A woman standing on that point
measures its speed as zero MPH. An observer standing on the surface
of the moon measures its speed as much higher. An observer orbiting
Proxina Centauri would report it as something completely different.

Talking about "the equatorial speed of the earth" is meaningless
until you tell us what you're measuring it against.

Relative motion means nothing to Kelleher.

How many times does the Earth turn relative to the Earth's completion of an orbital circuit ?. An unthinking mind can't grasp the concept but for those who come to the proper conclusion by the proper means can then go on to discuss all the other issues.

The number of times a planet turns is the same number of times the Equation of Time is applied to reduce the variations gauged by the return of the Sun to a meridian to a 24 hour average. I came to appreciate that despite the enormous fuss over the last century that nobody could get into the details of Sir Isaac's pathetic description of the Equation of Time and what he intended -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions....The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Newton

http://gravitee.tripod.com/definitions.htm


You have been programmed to think a certain way by generations before you hence you have no freedom of expression other than trying to make others feel as miserable as you are. I know this because I haven't seen a single person lift a finger to help themselves let alone help others but what I have seen is a lifeless concern for maintaining a fiction that undermines genuine research empiricists could be doing.

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 9:59:02 AM UTC, Lord Androcles wrote:

-- Pastor Ravi Holy of Ghetti Spa, Los Agña, Santa Gria
ria
Je suis charlie!

That is the last time I will ever respond to somebody who turns themselves into a non-entity but then again a person who uses the death of their own child to promote themselves is already damaged. In other words stay away or change.

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 2:27:44 PM UTC-5, LdB wrote:
On 1/27/2015 5:39 PM, wsnell01 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:

snip

Hey, palsing, you still owe me that apology for calling me a liar.


Interesting comment from Snell considering his motto is "Never spoil a
good story by telling the truth."

palsing wrote: "I do, however, think there is a problem that will require lower CO2 emissions, per capita." (Jan20)

When I pointed out that he had written it he responded with this:

"I defy you to show exactly where I said that... because I did NOT... now you are a liar!" (Jan22)

Get your facts straight before mouthing off again. Got it?

On 1/27/2015 5:39 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:

snip

Hey, palsing, you still owe me that apology for calling me a liar.




Interesting comment from Snell considering his motto is "Never spoil a
good story by telling the truth."

How can a man claim to be an astronomer when he spends most of his day
reading and posting to almost every thread on who knows how many forums?

Can you imagine the success a person could achieve if they put the
same effort into a career that he puts into posting to the Internet
and deceiving his welfare councilor.

LdB

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 08:54:40 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote this crap:

On 27/01/2015 15:30, Lord Vath wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:28:18 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 2:16:07 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

The members who make up the IAU and dig these huge holes for themselves and
everyone else have a physics background and not an astronomical background and
my goodness does it show.

If you want to *be* a professional astronomer, you need to *get* a Physics degree
. So a Physics background _is_ an astronomical background in this day and age.

Really? The university I went to gave out astronomy degrees and had a
separate department from the physics department.

It is more or less true. There are arguably no professional astronomers
today apart from the guys who adjudicate on the naming of new objects.

A little bit untrue. Most professional astronomers are teachers. But
they earn their living from teaching astronomy.

Professional astronomy is really about astrophysics using observations
of the extreme conditions found in exotic objects to better test our
understanding of the laws of physics right at their limits.

You can't understand astronomy without a very strong background in
physics and most leading UK universities offer astronomy only as an
optional final year course even though they have very strong research
astrophysics departments. There are 26 "astronomy" courses in the UK and
117 "astrophysics" and 550 "physics" courses.

If you want to become a professional astronomer then my advice is choose
a physics course at the best university that you can get into with a
strong astrophysics research centre to study physics as a undergraduate.
Chances are that parts of the physics course will be taught by people
who are working in astrophysics research.

Thanks to popular science programs there has also been a tendency to
offer near worthless hybrid courses along the lines of "astronomy and
unpopular hard science" to avoid closing a department. Caveat emptor!

Manchester is now overwhelmed with applications for physics thanks to
the Brian Cox effect (I suspect that many do not realise he spends a lot
of time away from the university at CERN or making TV programmes).

So he's right up there with Bill Nye Science Guy? We can only hope to
be so famous.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe