|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On or about 2005-02-13,
Stephen Tonkin illuminated us with: Mark Ayliffe wrote: I think the best answer is that the moon doesn't have a year. Whether or not it is the "best" answer (I guess that depends on your definition of "best"), it is the wrong answer, for the simple reason that the Moon does have a year (unless, of course, you are using some strange definition of "year" of which astronomers are not yet aware). Could you supply a link to somewhere so that I can understand that better please? I did spend some time looking around various usually authoritative resources before posting that. -- Mark Real email address | Timing has an awful lot to do with is mark at | the outcome of a rain dance. ayliffe dot org | |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Was Dodgy astronomy on TV - for amusement only
Stephen Tonkin wrote: In the case of the Earth this is 24hours (all figures rounded) Yes, for a *mean* solar day. A sidereal day is a tad shorter. Any non-astronomer is likely to assume that a single rotation means 360 degrees. Astronomers always prefer confusion and go straight to sidereal days or rotation with respect to the stars. Why not make it easy by saying a sidereal day is 360 degrees? The next step to a solar day of close to 361 deg then becomes much easier to understand. I saw the light of understanding in a class of kids the other day when I got them to think about a bike wheel doing a single rotation first on a flat road and then over the crown of a hill. Having a bike wheel in my hand helped... Is there a pool of shared ideas anywhere of ways that work for explaining basic astronomy to newbies/children? Watching teachers covering astronomy for GCSE is generally painful and half the books I read seem designed to spread confusion. Cheers Martin -- Martin Frey http://www.hadastro.org.uk N 51 02 E 0 47 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark Ayliffe" wrote in message
... | On or about 2005-02-13, | Stephen Tonkin illuminated us with: | Mark Ayliffe wrote: | I think the best answer is that the moon doesn't have a year. | | Whether or not it is the "best" answer (I guess that depends on your | definition of "best"), it is the wrong answer, for the simple reason | that the Moon does have a year (unless, of course, you are using some | strange definition of "year" of which astronomers are not yet aware). | | Could you supply a link to somewhere so that I can understand that better | please? I did spend some time looking around various usually authoritative | resources before posting that. | The moon's year is the same as the earth's. Imagine looking down on the earth-moon system from well above one of the earth's poles. Which way is the moon travelling? Relative to the sun, *always in the same direction the earth is*. Don't believe me? Then answer these questions: 1) What is the earth's orbital velocity around the sun? 2) What is the escape velocity from earth? The answer to (2) is less than the answer to (1) which means the moon cannot be doing circles round us as some people think. Both bodies always orbit the sun in the same direction but traversing intersecting curves varying either side of the orbit traced by the earth/moon system's centre of mass. The earth is much heavier than the moon so deviates relatively little (a few thousand miles) from side to side of that orbit. The lighter moon swings about 250 000 miles either side. It travels faster than we do when "full" and thus overtaking us, and slower than we do when "new" and we are overtaking it, but if we are orbiting at 18 miles/ second, the moon must even at "new" be travelling faster than 11 miles / second or we would be waving it "goodbye", escape velocity from the system being rather less than 7 miles/second at the moon's distance. If you look at the whole thing to scale the paths of the two bodies are almost indistinguishable, so how can you say that one has a "year" and the other doesn't? In fact, because Earth is so close to the Sun and so small, it is impossible for *any* satellite, natural or artificial, to circle us with regard to the reference frame of the sun. An equatorial satellite will take our path but with a distorted sine wave modulation (the "trough" on the sunward side being sharper than the "crest" away from the sun). A polar orbiting satellite traces a more complex orbit, varying between a helix of which the earth's orbit is the axis and a sinusoidal modulation at the same angle to the orbital plane as the inclination of the poles. Perhaps this is why an astronaut who spends that period of time in the International Space Station which is equivalent to just over 365 revolutions of the earth on its axis (wrt the Sun) is still said to have spent "a year" there. -- - Yokel - oo oo OOO OOO OO 0 OO ) ( I ) ( ) ( /\ ) ( "Yokel" now posts via a spam-trap account. Replace my alias with stevejudd to reply. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
JRS: In article , dated Wed, 16 Feb
2005 00:32:02, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy, Yokel posted : The moon's year is the same as the earth's. Imagine looking down on the earth-moon system from well above one of the earth's poles. Which way is the moon travelling? Relative to the sun, *always in the same direction the earth is*. Don't believe me? Then answer these questions: 1) What is the earth's orbital velocity around the sun? 2) What is the escape velocity from earth? The answer to (2) is less than the answer to (1) which means the moon cannot be doing circles round us as some people think. Your (2) is irrelevant. If the Earth were to be shrunk, preserving its mass, the Moon's behaviour would scarcely be affected, and both would follow their present paths. But the Earth's escape velocity would increase until it reached c and the Earth vanished within its own Schwarzschild radius, or whatever. It is because the moon's orbital speed is less than the earth's that the moon's path does not cross itself (in plan view, disregarding tilts & details). Even LEO satellites do not have self-crossing paths. And because the gravitational field of the Sun at the Moon is less (by a modest factor) than that of the Earth at the Moon, the Moon's path is always concave towards the Sun - like a cross between a 3d bit and a 50p piece. URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity2.htm#Moon -- © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. © Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links; some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Frey wrote: Was Dodgy astronomy on TV - for amusement only Stephen Tonkin wrote: In the case of the Earth this is 24hours (all figures rounded) Yes, for a *mean* solar day. A sidereal day is a tad shorter. Any non-astronomer is likely to assume that a single rotation means 360 degrees. Astronomers always prefer confusion and go straight to sidereal days or rotation with respect to the stars. Why not make it easy by saying a sidereal day is 360 degrees? The next step to a solar day of close to 361 deg then becomes much easier to understand. I saw the light of understanding in a class of kids the other day when I got them to think about a bike wheel doing a single rotation first on a flat road and then over the crown of a hill. Having a bike wheel in my hand helped... Is there a pool of shared ideas anywhere of ways that work for explaining basic astronomy to newbies/children? Watching teachers covering astronomy for GCSE is generally painful and half the books I read seem designed to spread confusion. Cheers Martin -- Martin Frey http://www.hadastro.org.uk N 51 02 E 0 47 It is stomachturning to know that you are teaching kids,given that it will certainly weaken kids understanding of astronomy and the principles which constitute the equable day,clocks, the geometry of the Earth ect ,I'm sure no parent who endeavor to call themselves parents would put their kids intentionally in harms way and leave them to 'teachers' like you.The basic human instinct is to protect children but you intellectual weaklings have managed to overide that fundamental instinct. You silly ****er are teaching kids that the Earth's axial and orbital motion is a single sidereal motion when in fact they are independent of each other. Maybe your nation is getting what it deserves,by not recognising how John Harrison worked on the principle of the 24 hour/360 deg equivalency via the Equation of Time correction and opting for Flamsteed's erroneous isochronical sidereal 'proof' you will eventually turn your nation into a bunch of imbeciles. You should'nt be near children especially when a half wit could tell you that the longitude co-ordinates you give in your signature also represent a specific 'time' value of a 24 hour clock allied to axial rotation through 360 degrees. Again,maybe your nation is getting what it desrves. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On 20 Feb 2005 06:04:02 -0800, wrote:
You should'nt be near... Isn't the apostrophe in the wrong place here? I think it should be between the "n" and the "t". I believe it represents a missing letter for example "n't" could be taken to mean "nut". -- Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk Global Projects - http://www.globalobservers.net |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
... On 20 Feb 2005 06:04:02 -0800, wrote: You should'nt be near... Isn't the apostrophe in the wrong place here? I think it should be between the "n" and the "t". I believe it represents a missing letter for example "n't" could be taken to mean "nut". *Could* be taken to mean "nut"? I do not think there is much doubt in this case. ;-) Chuck Taylor Do you observe the moon? Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/ Are you interested in understanding optics? Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/ ************************************ -- Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk Global Projects - http://www.globalobservers.net |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Hi all
In the Magic Roundabout movie there's a scene, where the heroes are in a hot air balloon, where the Moon is back-to-front. Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PA Astronomy Club Meeting - Please Read PA'ers | Ted A. Nichols II | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | March 10th 04 08:44 AM |
Astronomy Newsletter 2/27/04 | Jeremy McGovern | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | March 4th 04 12:25 PM |
ANN: reprint of Clerke's HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY | Bill McClain | Astronomy Misc | 7 | October 30th 03 08:05 PM |
Why Infrared Astronomy Is A Hot Topic | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 27th 03 01:32 AM |
Why infrared astronomy is a hot topic (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 25th 03 02:52 AM |