Star Distances

Utter nonsense....

http://www.kingcards.com/htdocs/friends/shakin.htm



The linear acceleration of a body moving in a gravitationa field is
independent both on the mass of the object and on the spin rate of the
object.

You're using your language very imprecisely. That may be true in a
two-body system on a point (uniform) mass, but we are not talking about
that. You are decomposing a much more complicated SYSTEM and applying
fundamental rules incompletely. The solar system consists of the
"internal" components of the Sun and planets, primarily, each with
their own velocities, internal forces, and angular momentums. You are
simplistically applying rules on one of its "internal" components by an
"external" force in determining a relative internal change of motion or
translation, namely Earth's orbit. All internal energies and momentums
of the solar system must be conserved therefore how the Earth reacts to
an external force does indeed depend on such things as angular
momentum.




Learn some fundamental mechanics, will you? Apparently not... :-(

Not only have I reviewed my mechanics, I'm looking over a book on
Astrodynamics. That is "rocket science".

On 10/7/06 21:26, in article , "George
Dishman" wrote:

So in the chapter that covers Newtonian mechanics
does it say f=ma or does it have some alternative
that includes angular momentum?

Paul's statement is quite clear and perfectly correct,
it is your handwaving and use of ambiguous terms like
'gyrate' that is imprecise and ultimately wrong.

George

I killfiled hurt a long while ago. It is patently obvious he is trolling -
that's why he posts to alt.conspiracy as well. His stupidity is too intense
not to be deliberate...

--

Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

"Hurt" wrote in message
oups.com...

Utter nonsense....

http://www.kingcards.com/htdocs/friends/shakin.htm



The linear acceleration of a body moving in a gravitationa field is
independent both on the mass of the object and on the spin rate of the
object.

You're using your language very imprecisely. That may be true in a
two-body system on a point (uniform) mass, but we are not talking about
that. You are decomposing a much more complicated SYSTEM and applying
fundamental rules incompletely. The solar system consists of the
"internal" components of the Sun and planets, primarily, each with
their own velocities, internal forces, and angular momentums. You are
simplistically applying rules on one of its "internal" components by an
"external" force in determining a relative internal change of motion or
translation, namely Earth's orbit. All internal energies and momentums
of the solar system must be conserved therefore how the Earth reacts to
an external force does indeed depend on such things as angular
momentum.




Learn some fundamental mechanics, will you? Apparently not... :-(

Not only have I reviewed my mechanics, I'm looking over a book on
Astrodynamics. That is "rocket science".

So in the chapter that covers Newtonian mechanics
does it say f=ma or does it have some alternative
that includes angular momentum?

Paul's statement is quite clear and perfectly correct,
it is your handwaving and use of ambiguous terms like
'gyrate' that is imprecise and ultimately wrong.

George

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in
message m_NOSPAM...

I killfiled hurt a long while ago. It is patently obvious he is trolling -
that's why he posts to alt.conspiracy as well. His stupidity is too
intense
not to be deliberate...

I'm not so sure, he dropped his argument of stellar
distances being wrong when he learned of Hipparcos
and the facts that gravitational bending has already
been taken into account and for a layman to be unaware
of Hipparcos or the accuracy which has been achieved
in measuring nearby star distances in the last few
decades doesn't surprise me in the least.

I think he's just a believer in the 'Nemesis' concept
looking for ways to make it still be credible in the
face of recent technological advances.

In fact I think if you told the average member of the
public that we can measure movement of distant stars
to a few metres per second, many would laugh at you,
but they also know we have found extra-solar planets.

George

or not. The centre of momentum (you might know
it as 'centre of gravity') is accelerated at
exactly the same rate regardless.

The center of mass of a rigid body is its center of LINEAR momentum but
not its center of ANGULAR momentum. Angular momentum exists about an
axis of rotation (or revolution) which may or may not pass through a
body's center of mass.

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

Also, the center of mass of a rigid body is not exactly its center of
gravity since any body has extent therefore one side will be closer to
a gravity field producing mass than the other side.

I killfiled hurt a long while ago. It is patently obvious he is trolling -

Yet you keep coming back.

So in the chapter that covers Newtonian mechanics
does it say f=ma or does it have some alternative
that includes angular momentum?

The Descent of Man?...! Here's another one of those BIG surprises on a
topic I never pay much attention to. [gear shift] I thought you're in
the UK, how are you becoming aware of my traffic?



Paul's statement is quite clear and perfectly correct,

So is mine. Let me "boil it down" some and state it again. You're
suggesting that to detect an external [to our solar system]
gravitational perturbation by a large nearby object we measure some
simplistic orbital change due to a linear acceleration, when the entire
solar system is experiencing the same acceleration? What are we going
to use as a reference? The best, if not the only, way to detect this
would be to measure the relative affects on the planets due precisely
to their different angular momentums; especially the larger planets.



it is your handwaving and use of ambiguous terms like
'gyrate' that is imprecise and ultimately wrong.

I'll admit I've been somewhat incomplete, but no more so than any of
you people.

I'm not so sure, he dropped his argument of stellar
distances being wrong when he learned of Hipparcos

Oh I think most of these cosmological speculations ("theories") are
wrong. There most likely are stars that are much closer. Close enough
for us to reach with present technology.



I think he's just a believer in the 'Nemesis' concept
looking for ways to make it still be credible in the
face of recent technological advances.

?
I have no reason to believe or not to believe in a 'Nemesis' concept,
but based on what I've just briefly investigated it does seem likely
that there is some relatively large nearby gravitational object that
makes a pass at us every once in a while.



but they also know we have found extra-solar planets.

Due to wobble!

On 10 Jul 2006 15:09:57 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:


I killfiled hurt a long while ago. It is patently obvious he is trolling -

Yet you keep coming back.

Yeah, but he is not reading your posts, you retarded troll dumb****.

On 10 Jul 2006 18:18:47 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:

Oh I think most of these cosmological speculations ("theories") are
wrong. There most likely are stars that are much closer. Close enough
for us to reach with present technology.


You're a goddamned retard.