A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 22nd 11, 08:51 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Androcles[_45_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system


"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 11:42 pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

...
On 21 ???, 18:44, "Androcles"
wrote:









"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


...


Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator, but
it
varies by latitude. Why is zero latitude the only value considered?
Surely
some sort of weighted average would be more characteristic?


Orbits of planets lie close to an ecliptic plane. The ecliptic plane
passes through the centre of a plane of equator of the Sun.


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


'The plane of the ecliptic (also known as the ecliptic plane) is the
plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.[1] It is the primary
reference plane when describing the position of bodies in the Solar
System,[2] with celestial latitude being measured relative to the
ecliptic plane.[3] In the course of a year, the Sun's apparent path
through the sky lies in this plane. The planetary bodies of our Solar
System all tend to lie near this plane, since they were formed from
the Sun's spinning, flattened, protoplanetary disk.[1]'


============================================
"Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator, but
it
varies by latitude."


Who does not agree with it?
==============================================
Finally, it has nothing to do with any planets. Finally, any discussion
of planets afterwards isn't final but a whole new subject. Finally, there
is no good reason given for the plane of rotation of the Sun to be aligned
with the ecliptic. And that's final.

I have shown on this fact in the message 1
of this thread.

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

Sun Sidereal rotation period:
(at equator) 25.05 days [1]
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 days [1] 25d 9h 7min 12s [8]
(at poles) 34.4 days [1]

So we have parametric down-conversion in the Solar system:

1. Sun Sidereal rotation period at equator:

Sun_Sidereal_rotation_period = 25.05 days

2. The characteristic period of the solar system as a whole:

characteristic period = 49.05799539 days

================================================== =
Full marks for being able to copy wackypedia. Three cheers for good
old Alek. Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray!

Although this statement has nothing at all to do with planets,
wackypedia says Aleksandr Timofeev can't spell his own
name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Timofeev


Sorry, no cutting corners, the old rules still stand - My name is
Aleksandr Nikolaevich Timofeev
================================================== ===

Awww... I wanted to be cheered for copying wackypedia.
Wackypedia says your name is really spelt "Timofeyev."
As you expect me to trust wackypedia that you like to copy
I have to conclude you can't spell your own name.

What about ' parametric down-conversion in the Solar system'?
================================================== ==
Babble. Russian babble. Russian idiot babble.


Huh, then:

It is necessary for you to study carefully
==================================================
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand nobody is interested
in you copying wackypedia, I can read it for myself.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the planets are NOT
all in the same plane.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the Sun's equatorial
plane
need not coincide with the plane of any one planet, anymore than the
Earth's equatorial plane doesn't coincide with the Moon's orbital plane.
Hahaha, then: It is NOT necessary for me to study your misunderstandings,
it is necessary for you to accept my corrections.





  #12  
Old July 22nd 11, 05:54 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Aleksandr Timofeev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system

On Jul 22, 11:51*am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

...
On Jul 21, 11:42 pm, "Androcles" .









2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


....
On 21 ???, 18:44, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


....


Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator, but
it
varies by latitude. Why is zero latitude the only value considered?
Surely
some sort of weighted average would be more characteristic?


Orbits of planets lie close to an ecliptic plane. The ecliptic plane
passes through the centre of a plane of equator of the Sun.


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


'The plane of the ecliptic (also known as the ecliptic plane) is the
plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.[1] It is the primary
reference plane when describing the position of bodies in the Solar
System,[2] with celestial latitude being measured relative to the
ecliptic plane.[3] In the course of a year, the Sun's apparent path
through the sky lies in this plane. The planetary bodies of our Solar
System all tend to lie near this plane, since they were formed from
the Sun's spinning, flattened, protoplanetary disk.[1]'


============================================
"Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator, but
it
varies by latitude."


Who does not agree with it?
==============================================
Finally, it has nothing to do with any planets. Finally, any discussion
of planets afterwards isn't final but a whole new subject. Finally, there
is no good reason given for the plane of rotation of the Sun to be aligned
with the ecliptic. And that's final.


I have shown on this fact in the message 1
of this thread.


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


Sun Sidereal rotation period:
(at equator) 25.05 days [1]
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 days [1] 25d 9h 7min 12s [8]
(at poles) 34.4 days [1]


So we have parametric down-conversion in the Solar system:


1. Sun Sidereal rotation period at equator:


Sun_Sidereal_rotation_period = 25.05 days


2. The characteristic period of the solar system as a whole:


characteristic period = 49.05799539 days


================================================== =
Full marks for being able to copy wackypedia. Three cheers for good
old Alek. Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray!


Although this statement has nothing at all to do with planets,
wackypedia says Aleksandr Timofeev can't spell his own
name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Timofeev


Sorry, no cutting corners, the old rules still stand - My name is
Aleksandr Nikolaevich Timofeev
================================================== ===


Awww... I wanted to be cheered for copying wackypedia.
Wackypedia says your name is really spelt "Timofeyev."
As you expect me to trust wackypedia that you like to copy
I have to conclude you can't spell your own name.


What about ' parametric down-conversion in the Solar system'?
================================================== ==
Babble. Russian babble. Russian idiot babble.


Huh, then:

It is necessary for you to study carefully
==================================================
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand nobody is interested
in you copying wackypedia, I can read it for myself.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the planets are NOT
all in the same plane.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the Sun's equatorial
plane
need not coincide with the plane of any one planet, anymore than the
Earth's equatorial plane doesn't coincide with the Moon's orbital plane.
Hahaha, then: It is NOT necessary for me to study your misunderstandings,
it is necessary for you to accept my corrections.


Well, then:

The inclination of orbits of planets to Solar equator does not exceed
7.155 degrees which one is insignificant value. For this reason, we
can neglect an inclination of orbits of planets to Solar equator.

Look at the table having the name an inclination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclination

In the sun there is some volume in the form of a torus (will assume),
which one has the rotation period coinciding on the average with
specified by me.
  #13  
Old July 22nd 11, 07:02 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Androcles[_45_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system


"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 11:51 am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

...
On Jul 21, 11:42 pm, "Androcles" .









2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


...
On 21 ???, 18:44, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


...


Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator,
but
it
varies by latitude. Why is zero latitude the only value considered?
Surely
some sort of weighted average would be more characteristic?


Orbits of planets lie close to an ecliptic plane. The ecliptic plane
passes through the centre of a plane of equator of the Sun.


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


'The plane of the ecliptic (also known as the ecliptic plane) is the
plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.[1] It is the primary
reference plane when describing the position of bodies in the Solar
System,[2] with celestial latitude being measured relative to the
ecliptic plane.[3] In the course of a year, the Sun's apparent path
through the sky lies in this plane. The planetary bodies of our Solar
System all tend to lie near this plane, since they were formed from
the Sun's spinning, flattened, protoplanetary disk.[1]'


============================================
"Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator,
but
it
varies by latitude."


Who does not agree with it?
==============================================
Finally, it has nothing to do with any planets. Finally, any discussion
of planets afterwards isn't final but a whole new subject. Finally,
there
is no good reason given for the plane of rotation of the Sun to be
aligned
with the ecliptic. And that's final.


I have shown on this fact in the message 1
of this thread.


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


Sun Sidereal rotation period:
(at equator) 25.05 days [1]
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 days [1] 25d 9h 7min 12s [8]
(at poles) 34.4 days [1]


So we have parametric down-conversion in the Solar system:


1. Sun Sidereal rotation period at equator:


Sun_Sidereal_rotation_period = 25.05 days


2. The characteristic period of the solar system as a whole:


characteristic period = 49.05799539 days


================================================== =
Full marks for being able to copy wackypedia. Three cheers for good
old Alek. Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray!


Although this statement has nothing at all to do with planets,
wackypedia says Aleksandr Timofeev can't spell his own
name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Timofeev


Sorry, no cutting corners, the old rules still stand - My name is
Aleksandr Nikolaevich Timofeev
================================================== ===


Awww... I wanted to be cheered for copying wackypedia.
Wackypedia says your name is really spelt "Timofeyev."
As you expect me to trust wackypedia that you like to copy
I have to conclude you can't spell your own name.


What about ' parametric down-conversion in the Solar system'?
================================================== ==
Babble. Russian babble. Russian idiot babble.


Huh, then:

It is necessary for you to study carefully
==================================================
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand nobody is interested
in you copying wackypedia, I can read it for myself.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the planets are NOT
all in the same plane.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the Sun's equatorial
plane
need not coincide with the plane of any one planet, anymore than the
Earth's equatorial plane doesn't coincide with the Moon's orbital plane.
Hahaha, then: It is NOT necessary for me to study your misunderstandings,
it is necessary for you to accept my corrections.


Well, then:

The inclination of orbits of planets to Solar equator does not exceed
7.155 degrees which one is insignificant value.
============================================
Hahahahahaha!
Well, then: Moscow does not exceed 15 degrees from Lithuania which one
is insignificant value. It is necessary for you to accept Russia is
insignificant
country.

I have no interest in wackypedia, the people that write it are biased,
prejudiced
and often wrong. Use a more reliable source for your data.




  #14  
Old July 22nd 11, 09:39 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 780
Default Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system

On 09/07/2011 20:45, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:

You appear to be claiming a resonance effect in the solar system, yes?

Apart from the fact that the ratio claimed is way off 2:1, there are two
rather obvious questions: -

1 Is it invariant when using planets other than Earth as the 'standard'?
i.e. what is the ratio if you recalculate ALL the figures based on (say)
the Jovian sidereal year and the Jovian sidereal day? Ditto for every
other planet?

2 In calculating f_Sys, why have you not included the asteroids?

In addition, you have the wrong units for the so called
characteristic_period.
The Earth's sidereal period has units days (=TIME), and f_Sys has units
1/year (=TIME^-1). Therefore, whatever units sidereal year/f_Sys has, it
isn't "days"; whatever units it has it's basically TIME^2.

So, in summary, it looks very much like just another case of poorly done
numerology.

  #15  
Old July 23rd 11, 09:25 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Aleksandr Timofeev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system

On 23 июл, 00:39, OG wrote:
On 09/07/2011 20:45, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:

You appear to be claiming a resonance effect in the solar system, yes?

Apart from the fact that the ratio claimed is way off 2:1, there are two
rather obvious questions: -

1 Is it invariant when using planets other than Earth as the 'standard'?
i.e. what is the ratio if you recalculate ALL the figures based on (say)
the Jovian sidereal year and the Jovian sidereal day? Â*Ditto for every
other planet?


In the given problem has no value in what units frequencies for
corresponding heavenly bodies are expressed. In all mathematical
formulas you are obliged to use the same units of measure of
frequencies. Therefore my ratio is an invariant since units of measure
of frequencies are reduced in the given ratio.

So the ratio claimed is way off 2:1 and units of measure of
frequencies are eliminated!!!

2 In calculating f_Sys, why have you not included the asteroids?


The solar system is nonlinear system of interacting bodies. From the
power point of view, in this system the main bodies are the Sun and
planets. Other bodies can be neglected, since their total mass is
insignificant. Value of mass of a heavenly body defines its energy of
gravitational interaction with other bodies. If value of mass of a
heavenly body is insignificant in relation to other bodies then
influence of this body on other bodies can be neglected in a
considered problem

In addition, you have the wrong units for the so called
characteristic_period.


I have the right units for characteristic_period.

See commentary above.

The Earth's sidereal period has units days (=TIME), and f_Sys has units
1/year (=TIME^-1). Therefore, whatever units sidereal year/f_Sys has, it
isn't "days"; whatever units it has it's basically TIME^2.


So, in summary, it looks very much like just another case of poorly done
numerology.


Whether your opinion has changed now?
  #16  
Old July 23rd 11, 09:38 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Aleksandr Timofeev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system

On 22 июл, 22:02, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

...
On Jul 22, 11:51 am, "Androcles" .









2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


....
On Jul 21, 11:42 pm, "Androcles" .


2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


....
On 21 ???, 18:44, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


...


Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator,
but
it
varies by latitude. Why is zero latitude the only value considered?
Surely
some sort of weighted average would be more characteristic?


Orbits of planets lie close to an ecliptic plane. The ecliptic plane
passes through the centre of a plane of equator of the Sun.


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


'The plane of the ecliptic (also known as the ecliptic plane) is the
plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.[1] It is the primary
reference plane when describing the position of bodies in the Solar
System,[2] with celestial latitude being measured relative to the
ecliptic plane.[3] In the course of a year, the Sun's apparent path
through the sky lies in this plane. The planetary bodies of our Solar
System all tend to lie near this plane, since they were formed from
the Sun's spinning, flattened, protoplanetary disk.[1]'


============================================
"Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator,
but
it
varies by latitude."


Who does not agree with it?
==============================================
Finally, it has nothing to do with any planets. Finally, any discussion
of planets afterwards isn't final but a whole new subject. Finally,
there
is no good reason given for the plane of rotation of the Sun to be
aligned
with the ecliptic. And that's final.


I have shown on this fact in the message 1
of this thread.


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


Sun Sidereal rotation period:
(at equator) 25.05 days [1]
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 days [1] 25d 9h 7min 12s [8]
(at poles) 34.4 days [1]


So we have parametric down-conversion in the Solar system:


1. Sun Sidereal rotation period at equator:


Sun_Sidereal_rotation_period = 25.05 days


2. The characteristic period of the solar system as a whole:


characteristic period = 49.05799539 days


================================================== =
Full marks for being able to copy wackypedia. Three cheers for good
old Alek. Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray!


Although this statement has nothing at all to do with planets,
wackypedia says Aleksandr Timofeev can't spell his own
name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Timofeev


Sorry, no cutting corners, the old rules still stand - My name is
Aleksandr Nikolaevich Timofeev
================================================== ===


Awww... I wanted to be cheered for copying wackypedia.
Wackypedia says your name is really spelt "Timofeyev."
As you expect me to trust wackypedia that you like to copy
I have to conclude you can't spell your own name.


What about ' parametric down-conversion in the Solar system'?
================================================== ==
Babble. Russian babble. Russian idiot babble.


Huh, then:


It is necessary for you to study carefully
==================================================
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand nobody is interested
in you copying wackypedia, I can read it for myself.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the planets are NOT
all in the same plane.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the Sun's equatorial
plane
need not coincide with the plane of any one planet, anymore than the
Earth's equatorial plane doesn't coincide with the Moon's orbital plane..
Hahaha, then: It is NOT necessary for me to study your misunderstandings,
it is necessary for you to accept my corrections.


Well, then:

The inclination of orbits of planets to Solar equator does not exceed
7.155 degrees which one is insignificant value.
============================================
Hahahahahaha!
Well, then: Moscow does not exceed 15 degrees from Lithuania which one
is insignificant value. It is necessary for you to accept Russia is
insignificant
country.


It seemed to me that you confuse "longitude" and "latitude".

I consider "a flat problem" in which one "latitude" drops out.


I have no interest in wackypedia, the people that write it are biased,
prejudiced
and often wrong. Use a more reliable source for your data.


You can use more precision data satisfying the refined taste, but in
an estimated problem there is no need in such accuracy.
  #17  
Old July 23rd 11, 09:54 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Androcles[_45_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system


"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
...
On 22 ???, 22:02, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

...
On Jul 22, 11:51 am, "Androcles" .









2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


...
On Jul 21, 11:42 pm, "Androcles" .


2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


...
On 21 ???, 18:44, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


...


Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator,
but
it
varies by latitude. Why is zero latitude the only value
considered?
Surely
some sort of weighted average would be more characteristic?


Orbits of planets lie close to an ecliptic plane. The ecliptic plane
passes through the centre of a plane of equator of the Sun.


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


'The plane of the ecliptic (also known as the ecliptic plane) is the
plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.[1] It is the primary
reference plane when describing the position of bodies in the Solar
System,[2] with celestial latitude being measured relative to the
ecliptic plane.[3] In the course of a year, the Sun's apparent path
through the sky lies in this plane. The planetary bodies of our
Solar
System all tend to lie near this plane, since they were formed from
the Sun's spinning, flattened, protoplanetary disk.[1]'


============================================
"Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator,
but
it
varies by latitude."


Who does not agree with it?
==============================================
Finally, it has nothing to do with any planets. Finally, any
discussion
of planets afterwards isn't final but a whole new subject. Finally,
there
is no good reason given for the plane of rotation of the Sun to be
aligned
with the ecliptic. And that's final.


I have shown on this fact in the message 1
of this thread.


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


Sun Sidereal rotation period:
(at equator) 25.05 days [1]
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 days [1] 25d 9h 7min 12s [8]
(at poles) 34.4 days [1]


So we have parametric down-conversion in the Solar system:


1. Sun Sidereal rotation period at equator:


Sun_Sidereal_rotation_period = 25.05 days


2. The characteristic period of the solar system as a whole:


characteristic period = 49.05799539 days


================================================== =
Full marks for being able to copy wackypedia. Three cheers for good
old Alek. Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray!


Although this statement has nothing at all to do with planets,
wackypedia says Aleksandr Timofeev can't spell his own
name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Timofeev


Sorry, no cutting corners, the old rules still stand - My name is
Aleksandr Nikolaevich Timofeev
================================================== ===


Awww... I wanted to be cheered for copying wackypedia.
Wackypedia says your name is really spelt "Timofeyev."
As you expect me to trust wackypedia that you like to copy
I have to conclude you can't spell your own name.


What about ' parametric down-conversion in the Solar system'?
================================================== ==
Babble. Russian babble. Russian idiot babble.


Huh, then:


It is necessary for you to study carefully
==================================================
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand nobody is interested
in you copying wackypedia, I can read it for myself.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the planets are NOT
all in the same plane.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the Sun's equatorial
plane
need not coincide with the plane of any one planet, anymore than the
Earth's equatorial plane doesn't coincide with the Moon's orbital plane.
Hahaha, then: It is NOT necessary for me to study your
misunderstandings,
it is necessary for you to accept my corrections.


Well, then:

The inclination of orbits of planets to Solar equator does not exceed
7.155 degrees which one is insignificant value.
============================================
Hahahahahaha!
Well, then: Moscow does not exceed 15 degrees from Lithuania which one
is insignificant value. It is necessary for you to accept Russia is
insignificant
country.


It seemed to me that you confuse "longitude" and "latitude".
=================================================
It seems to me that Moscow does not exceed 15 degrees from Lithuania
in longitude.
It is necessary for you to understand you are a ****ing moron. **** off.




  #18  
Old July 23rd 11, 10:44 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 780
Default Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system

On 23/07/2011 09:25, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
On 23 июл, 00:39, wrote:
On 09/07/2011 20:45, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:

You appear to be claiming a resonance effect in the solar system, yes?

Apart from the fact that the ratio claimed is way off 2:1, there are two
rather obvious questions: -

1 Is it invariant when using planets other than Earth as the 'standard'?
i.e. what is the ratio if you recalculate ALL the figures based on (say)
the Jovian sidereal year and the Jovian sidereal day? Ditto for every
other planet?


In the given problem has no value in what units frequencies for
corresponding heavenly bodies are expressed. In all mathematical
formulas you are obliged to use the same units of measure of
frequencies. Therefore my ratio is an invariant since units of measure
of frequencies are reduced in the given ratio.


I think you are wrong. Feel free to prove you are correct by doing the
calculations.

So the ratio claimed is way off 2:1 and units of measure of
frequencies are eliminated!!!

2 In calculating f_Sys, why have you not included the asteroids?


The solar system is nonlinear system of interacting bodies. From the
power point of view, in this system the main bodies are the Sun and
planets. Other bodies can be neglected, since their total mass is
insignificant. Value of mass of a heavenly body defines its energy of
gravitational interaction with other bodies. If value of mass of a
heavenly body is insignificant in relation to other bodies then
influence of this body on other bodies can be neglected in a
considered problem


In terms of the solar system, Mercury's mass is probably insignificant
too: what effect would that have on your hypothesis

In addition, you have the wrong units for the so called
characteristic_period.


I have the right units for characteristic_period.

See commentary above.


You are wrong. You are dividing a time by a frequency, so the units are
time squared.


The Earth's sidereal period has units days (=TIME), and f_Sys has units
1/year (=TIME^-1). Therefore, whatever units sidereal year/f_Sys has, it
isn't "days"; whatever units it has it's basically TIME^2.


So, in summary, it looks very much like just another case of poorly done
numerology.


Whether your opinion has changed now?


Of course not. You were challenged on two points and you ducked the
challenge on both.


  #19  
Old July 23rd 11, 05:20 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Aleksandr Timofeev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system

On 23 июл, 12:54, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

...
On 22 ???, 22:02, "Androcles"
wrote:









"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


...
On Jul 22, 11:51 am, "Androcles" .


2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


....
On Jul 21, 11:42 pm, "Androcles" .


2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


...
On 21 ???, 18:44, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message


...


Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator,
but
it
varies by latitude. Why is zero latitude the only value
considered?
Surely
some sort of weighted average would be more characteristic?


Orbits of planets lie close to an ecliptic plane. The ecliptic plane
passes through the centre of a plane of equator of the Sun.


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


'The plane of the ecliptic (also known as the ecliptic plane) is the
plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.[1] It is the primary
reference plane when describing the position of bodies in the Solar
System,[2] with celestial latitude being measured relative to the
ecliptic plane.[3] In the course of a year, the Sun's apparent path
through the sky lies in this plane. The planetary bodies of our
Solar
System all tend to lie near this plane, since they were formed from
the Sun's spinning, flattened, protoplanetary disk.[1]'


============================================
"Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator,
but
it
varies by latitude."


Who does not agree with it?
==============================================
Finally, it has nothing to do with any planets. Finally, any
discussion
of planets afterwards isn't final but a whole new subject. Finally,
there
is no good reason given for the plane of rotation of the Sun to be
aligned
with the ecliptic. And that's final.


I have shown on this fact in the message 1
of this thread.


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


Sun Sidereal rotation period:
(at equator) 25.05 days [1]
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 days [1] 25d 9h 7min 12s [8]
(at poles) 34.4 days [1]


So we have parametric down-conversion in the Solar system:


1. Sun Sidereal rotation period at equator:


Sun_Sidereal_rotation_period = 25.05 days


2. The characteristic period of the solar system as a whole:


characteristic period = 49.05799539 days


================================================== =
Full marks for being able to copy wackypedia. Three cheers for good
old Alek. Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray!


Although this statement has nothing at all to do with planets,
wackypedia says Aleksandr Timofeev can't spell his own
name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Timofeev


Sorry, no cutting corners, the old rules still stand - My name is
Aleksandr Nikolaevich Timofeev
================================================== ===


Awww... I wanted to be cheered for copying wackypedia.
Wackypedia says your name is really spelt "Timofeyev."
As you expect me to trust wackypedia that you like to copy
I have to conclude you can't spell your own name.


What about ' parametric down-conversion in the Solar system'?
================================================== ==
Babble. Russian babble. Russian idiot babble.


Huh, then:


It is necessary for you to study carefully
==================================================
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand nobody is interested
in you copying wackypedia, I can read it for myself.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the planets are NOT
all in the same plane.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the Sun's equatorial
plane
need not coincide with the plane of any one planet, anymore than the
Earth's equatorial plane doesn't coincide with the Moon's orbital plane.
Hahaha, then: It is NOT necessary for me to study your
misunderstandings,
it is necessary for you to accept my corrections.


Well, then:


The inclination of orbits of planets to Solar equator does not exceed
7.155 degrees which one is insignificant value.
============================================
Hahahahahaha!
Well, then: Moscow does not exceed 15 degrees from Lithuania which one
is insignificant value. It is necessary for you to accept Russia is
insignificant
country.



It seemed to me that you confuse "longitude" and "latitude".
=================================================
It seems to me that Â*Moscow does not exceed 15 degrees from Lithuania
in longitude.


It is necessary for you to understand you are a ****ing moron. **** off.


Look at this citation:

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

" Sun Sidereal rotation period:
(at equator) 25.05 days [1]
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 days [1] 25d 9h 7min 12s [8]
(at poles) 34.4 days [1] "

It is necessary for Androcles to understand:

Thus. We see that speed of rotation of a surface of the Sun falls at
change of "latitude" from Sun equator to poles. Speed of rotation of a
surface of the Sun on concrete "latitude" is constant and does not
depend on "longitude".

It seemed to me that you confuse "longitude" and "latitude".
=================================================
It seems to me that Moscow does not exceed 15 degrees from Lithuania
in longitude.


Your example with Lithuania and Moscow for different "longitudes" is
irrelevant in this case.

Thus. We see that speed of rotation of a surface of the Sun falls at
change of "latitude" from Sun equator to poles. Speed of rotation of a
surface of the Sun on concrete "latitude" is constant and does not
depend on "longitude".

  #20  
Old July 23rd 11, 06:15 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system

On Jul 22, 10:39*pm, OG wrote:
On 09/07/2011 20:45, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:

You appear to be claiming a resonance effect in the solar system, yes?

Apart from the fact that the ratio claimed is way off 2:1, there are two
rather obvious questions: -

1 Is it invariant when using planets other than Earth as the 'standard'?
i.e. what is the ratio if you recalculate ALL the figures based on (say)
the Jovian sidereal year and the Jovian sidereal day? *Ditto for every
other planet?

2 In calculating f_Sys, why have you not included the asteroids?

In addition, you have the wrong units for the so called
characteristic_period.
The Earth's sidereal period has units days (=TIME), and f_Sys has units
1/year (=TIME^-1). Therefore, whatever units sidereal year/f_Sys has, it
isn't "days"; whatever units it has it's basically TIME^2.

So, in summary, it looks very much like just another case of poorly done
numerology.


A simple line of reasoning -

The proportion of rotations to 1 orbital circuit of the Earth is 365
1/4 rotations

Daily and orbital motions are distinct from each other.

The 1/4 rotation omitted each non-leap year to facilitate the
projection of the Earth's motions using average rotation and the
calendar convenience of Feb 29th as a full 24 hour rotation in closing
out 4 orbital circuits of 1461 rotation is self-explanatory,as the
orbital motion moves through Mar 1st each non-leap year in increments
of roughly 6 hours.Whereas the average rotations ended at the
beginning of Mar 1st 2011 ,the orbital drift ended at roughly 6PM Mar
1st.At the end of Feb 28 th 2012,the orbital motion will be ahead by a
full rotation and 24 hours so that the additional rotation of Feb 29th
reigns in the orbital drift in terms of the proportional balance of
1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits.

Sidereal time junk begins with the attempt to explain daily rotation
through stellar circumpolar motion,fudges in an orbital component of 3
minutes 56 seconds to 24 hours and does an amazing job of ignoring
that it only works within the calendar system as opposed to the
nonsensical value of 366 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.

So,this empirical kludge of trying to fit the daily and orbital
motions into a compound motion run off right ascension exists at the
bottom of the 'predictive agenda' and if readers are prepared to
accept 1465 rotations in proportion to 4 orbital circuits they may as
well give up !,it is the end of the long descent of Western
civilization insofar as the prescription to resolve the issue only
requires basic arrithmetic.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 14 July 31st 09 03:15 AM
Our Solar System [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 February 28th 07 12:20 PM
ET in solar system Chris SETI 22 August 13th 05 05:22 AM
Name our Solar System [email protected] Space Science Misc 7 May 12th 05 01:14 AM
Solar concentration mirrors in the outer solar system wlm Policy 26 September 13th 04 07:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.