#111
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:48:24 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote:
Astronomy is based on objects in motion and especially the Earth's own motion around the central Sun, it is not based on forces,mass,momentum or any of the other jargon dumped into it by empiricists who themselves lack basic common sense and genuine mathematics anchored in geometry. Students will go back to schools and colleges in a few weeks and they must be taught that the reason why 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness at the polar latitudes is caused by the Earth turning as it moves through space where it mixes with daily rotation at lower latitudes to cause the seasons. This is not a hypothesis or assertion,this is a 100% observational fact - http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg I am sorry if empiricists have mathematical disabilities,I truly do, however they must not stand in the way of students and adults who have the analytic capabilities to put those long term images in dynamical context and give humanity back the mathematics of geometry in motion. In the physics forum they scream at each other over misunderstanding of jargon while I come here and demonstrate how easily it is create and demonstrate visual narratives for meaningful insights and conclusions thereby dismantling contrived nonsense forced down the throat of humanity through the education system. So,when one of you actually enjoy the cause behind the 6 month daylight/6 month darkness cycle at the North and South poles then you can call yourselves astronomers but not before then. You give us buns, and have the nerve to call your meatless wonder a "burger". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0 -- Email address is a Spam trap. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:07:10 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:48:24 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote: Astronomy is based on objects in motion and especially the Earth's own motion around the central Sun, it is not based on forces,mass,momentum or any of the other jargon dumped into it by empiricists who themselves lack basic common sense and genuine mathematics anchored in geometry. Students will go back to schools and colleges in a few weeks and they must be taught that the reason why 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness at the polar latitudes is caused by the Earth turning as it moves through space where it mixes with daily rotation at lower latitudes to cause the seasons. This is not a hypothesis or assertion,this is a 100% observational fact - http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg I am sorry if empiricists have mathematical disabilities,I truly do, however they must not stand in the way of students and adults who have the analytic capabilities to put those long term images in dynamical context and give humanity back the mathematics of geometry in motion. In the physics forum they scream at each other over misunderstanding of jargon while I come here and demonstrate how easily it is create and demonstrate visual narratives for meaningful insights and conclusions thereby dismantling contrived nonsense forced down the throat of humanity through the education system. So,when one of you actually enjoy the cause behind the 6 month daylight/6 month darkness cycle at the North and South poles then you can call yourselves astronomers but not before then. You give us buns, and have the nerve to call your meatless wonder a "burger". Here is your very expensive meatless burger - http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/seasons/en/ Before it becomes possible to answer the question as to what causes the seasons another simple question needs to be asked - What is the dynamic behind the 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness at the North/South poles ?. When that question is answered correctly,then and only then can the seasons be explained by introducing daily surface rotation to the Sun at lower latitudes. Moving through space and around the Sun the Earth turns as it does so and all affirmed visually to a 100% certainty along with any analogy one cares to make - http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg This is pure enjoyment and so what if the academics or the opinionated will not put those images in context of a surface rotation nor the polar day/night cycle and on to a proper explanation for the seasons, the orbital surface rotation to the central Sun is here to stay and changes all ahead of it. Finding a vehicle to host the new explanation is the only real difficulty so for the moment students still suffer those poor explanations from NASA and the like. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:43:13 AM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:
Before it becomes possible to answer the question as to what causes the seasons another simple question needs to be asked - What is the dynamic behind the 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness at the North/South poles ?. The Earth's orbit around the Sun. Which changes the direction in which the Earth lies from the Sun, and hence the direction in which the Sun lies from the Earth, which is what you term a "second surface rotation". John Savard |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
When will you lot learn that Gerald will never change his opinion on anything and that he will never answer questions on his crackpot views! Do a Google search and you will soon find out that he has been finding suckers to play his game for years (including me) and there is nil difference between what he was saying 2004-2006 and now. All the "I'm sure I can get through to Gerald" people have done is waste their own time. Gerald is, to all intents and purposes, a bot. Indeed there isn't that much proof that he isn't actually one! |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
In article ,
oriel36 wrote: Why do you insist putting the 100% observational certainty of the surface rotation of the Earth to the central Sun as a function of its orbital motion through space in quotation marks ?. Because I am comfortable with the more productive modern view that partitions rotational motion from motion through space. Pick up a broom representing not only rotation but the constant orientation to Polaris as the Earth moves through space and around the central Sun and tilt the broom 23 1/2 degrees from the line of your body to imitate the Earth's surface feature. Walk around the object imitating the Earth's motion through space while keeping the broom pointing constantly to the same external point and you will discover that all points of your body turn to that central object/Sun imitating the surface rotation of all planets as they turn once to the Sun as a function of their motion through space. Now, aren't you the person who claims that we can't make analogies from motions on the surface of the Earth to motions in space? That watching an apple fall doesn't tell us anything about planets and the moon? How then can you ask me to do this walking and then move from that to the Earth and the Sun? In any event, in your own example here, I'm not the Earth. I'm gravity. The broom is the Earth, and the broom does not turn. So you're saying here that the Earth has a rotational motion as it orbits the Sun. So then does the Moon have one as it orbits the Earth? I thought the whole point here was that the Moon doesn't rotate, and so presents one face to the Earth, but the Earth doesn't present one face to the Sun, and therefore must have a rotation to explain this. It seems to me that you're being inconsistent -- not with celestial mechanics as generally presented, that's a given, but with your own framework. -- David Goldfarb | "It's not called 'The Net of a Million Lies' | for nothing." | -- Vernor Vinge, _A Fire Upon the Deep_ |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
wrote:
When will you lot learn that Gerald will never change his opinion on anything and that he will never answer questions on his crackpot views! Do a Google search and you will soon find out that he has been finding suckers to play his game for years (including me) and there is nil difference between what he was saying 2004-2006 and now. All the "I'm sure I can get through to Gerald" people have done is waste their own time. Gerald is, to all intents and purposes, a bot. Indeed there isn't that much proof that he isn't actually one! 1 You're still playing his game. 2. The most futile kind of post on usenet is the request that people stop posting. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Spectacular
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:14:26 AM UTC+1, David Goldfarb wrote:
In article , oriel36 wrote: Why do you insist putting the 100% observational certainty of the surface rotation of the Earth to the central Sun as a function of its orbital motion through space in quotation marks ?. Because I am comfortable with the more productive modern view that partitions rotational motion from motion through space. Pick up a broom representing not only rotation but the constant orientation to Polaris as the Earth moves through space and around the central Sun and tilt the broom 23 1/2 degrees from the line of your body to imitate the Earth's surface feature. Walk around the object imitating the Earth's motion through space while keeping the broom pointing constantly to the same external point and you will discover that all points of your body turn to that central object/Sun imitating the surface rotation of all planets as they turn once to the Sun as a function of their motion through space. Now, aren't you the person who claims that we can't make analogies from motions on the surface of the Earth to motions in space? The analogy is not only a simulation of the Earth surface rotation to the Sun as a function of its orbital motion,it is a direct imitation of an observation that is a 100% observational certainty. http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg Just because it is an achievement doesn't mean I can walk away from it as the necessity of recognizing that the orbital motion of the Earth through space does generate a surface rotation in addition to daily rotation and quite separate to it requires a reformatting of so many other things and especially what is now termed 'axial precession'. That watching an apple fall doesn't tell us anything about planets and the moon? How then can you ask me to do this walking and then move from that to the Earth and the Sun? A better analogy for planetary dynamics is using magnets but that is conjecture whereas nobody is asked to prove anything by walking around a central object in a specific way in imitation of planetary orbital motion and especially as it affirms what is already observed as a fact. In any event, in your own example here, I'm not the Earth. I'm gravity. The broom is the Earth, and the broom does not turn. The broom represents constant axial orientation (to Polaris if you wish) thereby you discover the single surface rotation responsible for 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness at either poles. http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg This is beyond the need for proof,more about common sense than proof as a foundation for explaining the seasons at lower latitudes along with why noon cycles vary. Since the issue about the Sun's apparent daily and annual arc is challenged as an observation and that doesn't even require a translation into planetary dynamics there is no longer a need to keep the explanation front and center as I previously once did. As you traffic in science fiction signatures you are best left to your own devices,not that I have anything against science fiction but unfortunately as a group you can't make the distinction between fact and fiction. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mars takes centre stage in IMAX spectacular | The Register | Nick | UK Astronomy | 0 | January 30th 06 12:11 PM |
MARS SPECTACULAR COMI | JOHN PAZMINO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 28th 05 07:35 AM |
MARS SPECTACULAR COMING--Huh? | W. Watson | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | June 20th 05 02:43 AM |
Europe's eye on Mars: first spectacular results from Mars Express(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 1 | January 19th 04 06:58 PM |
Mars spectacular tonight in Jersey! | SirWmOsler | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | September 7th 03 12:51 PM |