Oriel36's Moon

Oriel36's Moon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=46-m4Y4Adto

On Feb 19, 10:38*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Oriel36's Moon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=46-m4Y4Adto

As you well know,I have little time and use for welfare academics even
if they are dominant in the education system so that leaves readers
with integrity and a functioning intelligence.These reader can side
with Kepler (on page 78) in that the moon orbits the Earth and there
is no secondary intrinsic rotation.

This is a long way from discussing why a planet has not only daily
rotation but turns once with respect to the central Sun as an orbital
component thereby necessitating a modification where axial precession
goes from a long term axial trait to an annual orbital trait.The polar
coordinate of Uranus act like a beacon for this major modification -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

Readers should not doubt that Uranus will continue to turn a full 360
degrees to the central Sun,and to us,and this is where the information
truly goes.Anyone who sees the moon spin in its monthly lunar orbit is
dysfunctional ,the fact that your community uses Kepler so much in
terms of variable orbital speed yet choose to ignore him on this
matter is hardly surprising hence I am on the lookout for an
individual who actually likes astronomy and is not scared of
observations and how to interpret them properly.

Society goes through an indoctrination that begins quite early once
students enter the education system and it may be that you simply
couldn't,not with the strongest effort,imagine the type of freedom and
satisfaction astronomy does give to those who are not so wound up
about history and can use modern imaging with good effect.

On Feb 19, 10:38*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Oriel36's Moon







http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=46-m4Y4Adto

Oops !,forgot the link -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJ...kepler&f=false

For the first time Sam,you have the resource of someone who can
visualize the arguments and set them in order instead of fumbling
through stories as your community is want to do.I thought at least a
few might be interested in absolute/relative time,space and motion and
what Isaac was trying to do but it seems that your community is happy
to create an even greater labyrinth around these things and pass them
off as improvements.For me they are distractions from the new approach
to astronomy that contemporary imaging allows.

Yes, but that video only shows that the Moon rotates if you define
rotation as movement relative to the fixed stars.

If you walk around in a circle, it's true that you will also face in
different directions as you walk, but because people normally walk
forwards, that rotation in geographical coordinates is usually not
mentioned explicitly as something separate from the circular walking
motion. So why can't we treat orbits the same way?

So in order to explain why we choose to say that the Moon rotates, we
have to show why considering its rotation relative to the fixed stars
as an inherent result of its orbital motion is not satisfactory. And
that's why I tend to think that it's necessary to bring up libration
(specifically, libration in longitude).

That is what shows that the Moon is rotating at a uniform pace, while
its orbital motion, following Kepler's laws, sweeping out equal areas
in equal times of an elliptical orbit, sweeps out varying angles - and
the difference between the Moon's rotation and the angular
displacement of its orbit causes libration.

Of course, while I don't think that argument is actually too
complicated for Oriel to follow, he does refuse to make the effort he
would need to make to see his errors.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

Yes, but that video only shows that the Moon rotates if you define
rotation as movement relative to the fixed stars.

If you walk around in a circle, it's true that you will also face in
different directions as you walk, but because people normally walk
forwards, that rotation in geographical coordinates is usually not
mentioned explicitly as something separate from the circular walking
motion. So why can't we treat orbits the same way?

So in order to explain why we choose to say that the Moon rotates, we
have to show why considering its rotation relative to the fixed stars
as an inherent result of its orbital motion is not satisfactory. And
that's why I tend to think that it's necessary to bring up libration
(specifically, libration in longitude).

That is what shows that the Moon is rotating at a uniform pace, while
its orbital motion, following Kepler's laws, sweeping out equal areas
in equal times of an elliptical orbit, sweeps out varying angles - and
the difference between the Moon's rotation and the angular
displacement of its orbit causes libration.

Of course, while I don't think that argument is actually too
complicated for Oriel to follow, he does refuse to make the effort he
would need to make to see his errors.

John Savard
===============================================
I am compelled to agree that you don't think.
Refusal to make effort is far too complicated to follow.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.