#11
|
|||
|
|||
Friar Broccoli wrote:
It is my understanding that about 4 billion years ago the moon was much closer to the earth than today (correct ?). and as a result of bumping into dust/asteroids etc. it has gradually lost energy and therefore moved AWAY from the earth. My intuition tells me that as the moon looses energy/momentum it should be less able to resist earth's gravity, and therefore move NEARER to the earth. Why is my intuition wrong? Others have answered this, but for a nice picture, look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html Steve Carlip |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
To Jonathan
Most diagrams expressing Kepler's second law are exaggerated to carry the point but that one is useful for the addition feature of demonstrating the change in orbital orientation of the Earth http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg The arrows at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line represent the point of division where the Earth receives direct sunlight and where the Earth's orbital shadow (night) http://www.kuffner.org/james/gallery...flare_test.jpg That shadow/light division changes in accordance with Kepler's second law (see first diagram) thereby generating the Equation of Time differential between the natural day and the 24 hour clock day and more importantly seasonal variations from a global perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions. Btw, it is not at all difficult to adjust a few orientations and motions to get a more satisfactory result and there is damn all I can do about contemporary descriptions that are at 90 degrees to mine but common sense will eventually prevail for most people recognise the axial orientation and therefore Equatorial orientation remains constant - http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg So the obvious mechanism for seasonal changes as a global description is the changing orbital orientation of the Earth over the course of an annual orbit.For the first heliocentrists this would be so easy to comprehend and work with for their reasoning for a heliocentric system is resolving retrograde motion by focusing on the orbital motion of the Earth (thus infering heliocentricity) and I am just continuing in the same manner. http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...turn_retro.gif Rheticus "With regard to the apparent motions of the Sun and Moon, it is perhaps possible to deny what is said about the motion of the Earth, although I do not see how the explanation of precession is to be transferred to the sphere of the stars. But if anyone desires to look either to the order and harmony of the system of the spheres, or to ease and elegance and a complete explanation of the causes of the phenomena, by no other hypotheses will he demonstrate more neatly and correctly the apparent motions of the remaining planets. For all these phenomena appear to be linked most nobly together, as by a golden chain; and each of the planets, by its position and order and very inequality of its motion, bears witness that the Earth moves. . . . " 1540, Narratio Prima Do you see where he is working with indepedent motions and orientations ,well this is my astronomical heritage which was destroyed by the cataloguers who fudged things for tying the celestial sphere to terrestial longitudes and their particular mangling of the Equation of Time. Suit yourself,if you want to give the Earth a magic tilt property it does not have then you will fit in with just about every contemporary description for seasonal changes,there is another view but as I seem to provoke these stupid responses I guess I will have to withdraw in order for some decent person to affirm what I already know. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In message .com,
writes Most diagrams expressing Kepler's second law are exaggerated to carry the point but that one is useful for the addition feature of demonstrating the change in orbital orientation of the Earth http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg Change in orbital orientation? Relative to what? The Sun? The Milky Way? It doesn't happen. The arrows at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line represent the point of division where the Earth receives direct sunlight and where the Earth's orbital shadow (night) So? It isn't exactly Nobel Prize material to say that the Earth is a sphere, and the sunset line is at 90 degrees to the Sun/Earth line. You do know that the Earth rotates? Perhaps not. http://www.kuffner.org/james/gallery..._space/earth_l ens_flare_test.jpg What on Earth does that picture have to do with anything? It isn't even accurate, as it shows the Earth and Moon with different phases. For the first heliocentrists this would be so easy to comprehend and work with for their reasoning for a heliocentric system is resolving retrograde motion by focusing on the orbital motion of the Earth (thus infering heliocentricity) and I am just continuing in the same manner. http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...n_planets/jupi ter_saturn_retro.gif Here we go again :-) Yet again, there _is_ no retrograde motion as seen from the Sun. Nice picture, though. And in the last 500 years astronomy has advanced slightly from a purely heliocentric viewpoint :-) Rheticus "With regard to the apparent motions of the Sun and Moon, it is perhaps possible to deny what is said about the motion of the Earth, although I do not see how the explanation of precession is to be transferred to the sphere of the stars. snip 1540, Narratio Prima You keep posting this, but I don't see what point you're making. Do you know? What I find interesting is that Rheticus obviously has doubts about the mechanism of precession. but as I seem to provoke these stupid responses I guess I will have to withdraw in order for some decent person to affirm what I already know. We wish :-) You'll be back, peddling the same monomaniac nonsense. Sorry, but I'm not going to even try and be polite any more. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan, I read your response but I think you
credit Gerald with too much understanding. wrote in message oups.com... To Jonathan .... That shadow/light division changes in accordance with Kepler's second law (see first diagram) thereby generating the Equation of Time differential between the natural day and the 24 hour clock day and more importantly seasonal variations from a global perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions. Read that again: "seasonal variations from a global perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions." AFAICS, Gerald is saying that if it is summer in the UK (as it is now, I know, I'm here), it is also summer in Australia and the widely held belief that they are six months out of phase is erroneous! Maybe one of our antipodean contributors could perform a scientific experiment and pop his head out of the window to check for us :-) Suit yourself,if you want to give the Earth a magic tilt property it does not have then you will fit in with just about every contemporary description for seasonal changes,there is another view but as I seem to provoke these stupid responses I guess I will have to withdraw in order for some decent person to affirm what I already know. What you know is wrong Gerald, it is currently summer in the UK but winter in Australia ! George p.s. I'll try to find time to answer your other posts soon though from the level of understanding you exhibit above, there doesn't seem to be much point. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"George Dishman" wrote in
: Jonathan, I read your response but I think you credit Gerald with too much understanding. wrote in message oups.com... To Jonathan ... That shadow/light division changes in accordance with Kepler's second law (see first diagram) thereby generating the Equation of Time differential between the natural day and the 24 hour clock day and more importantly seasonal variations from a global perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions. Read that again: "seasonal variations from a global perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions." AFAICS, Gerald is saying that if it is summer in the UK (as it is now, I know, I'm here), it is also summer in Australia and the widely held belief that they are six months out of phase is erroneous! Maybe one of our antipodean contributors could perform a scientific experiment and pop his head out of the window to check for us :-) Just carried out your experiment. Definitely winter here and I'm not too far from Australia. Looks like Gerald's hypothesis is empirically disproved. Well who'da thought? Klazmon. SNIP |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message 7.6... "George Dishman" wrote in : Jonathan, I read your response but I think you credit Gerald with too much understanding. wrote in message oups.com... To Jonathan ... That shadow/light division changes in accordance with Kepler's second law (see first diagram) thereby generating the Equation of Time differential between the natural day and the 24 hour clock day and more importantly seasonal variations from a global perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions. Read that again: "seasonal variations from a global perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions." AFAICS, Gerald is saying that if it is summer in the UK (as it is now, I know, I'm here), it is also summer in Australia and the widely held belief that they are six months out of phase is erroneous! Maybe one of our antipodean contributors could perform a scientific experiment and pop his head out of the window to check for us :-) Just carried out your experiment. Definitely winter here and I'm not too far from Australia. Looks like Gerald's hypothesis is empirically disproved. Well who'da thought? Marvellous, thank you Llanzlan. Can you explain those two observations Gerald? George |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
George Dishman wrote: "Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message 7.6... "George Dishman" wrote in : Jonathan, I read your response but I think you credit Gerald with too much understanding. wrote in message oups.com... To Jonathan ... That shadow/light division changes in accordance with Kepler's second law (see first diagram) thereby generating the Equation of Time differential between the natural day and the 24 hour clock day and more importantly seasonal variations from a global perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions. Read that again: "seasonal variations from a global perspective rather than the pathetic winter/summer hemispherical descriptions." AFAICS, Gerald is saying that if it is summer in the UK (as it is now, I know, I'm here), it is also summer in Australia and the widely held belief that they are six months out of phase is erroneous! Maybe one of our antipodean contributors could perform a scientific experiment and pop his head out of the window to check for us :-) Just carried out your experiment. Definitely winter here and I'm not too far from Australia. Looks like Gerald's hypothesis is empirically disproved. Well who'da thought? Marvellous, thank you Llanzlan. Can you explain those two observations Gerald? George Most people have enough common sense to realise that the Earth axial orientation is constantly pointed towards Polaris therefore the Equator at 90 degrees to the axis will also remain fixed. http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg The cause in seasonal changes from a global perspective is the change in orbital orientation of the Earth to this fixed axial orientation and it has nothing to do with any perceived tilt of the axis to the orbital plane or to the Sun. The politicians and most everyone else have noticed a climatic imbalance or climate change as it is currently called,these same people are faced with scientists who cannot even determine what causes the natural seasonal variations for anyone who finds reason to argue with me cannot consider themselves to be scientific in any way. Some things cannot wait and I strongly suggest that decent and real men start considering the change in orbital orientation of the Earth as the standard for seasonal climatic variations for both hemispheres simultaneously.You 3 empirical freaks can stick with variable axial tilt to the orbital plane but since when did theorists ever produce anything worthwhile. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
To Klazmon
The Sun high against the Equator in the summer and low against the Equator in winter is an illusion for the Earth's axial orientation is fixed to Polaris as is the Equator at 90 degrees to the Earth's axis therefore the Earth cannot tilt towards the Sun,away from the Sun or indeed to the orbital plane.Apart from the precessional wobble there is little that can be said for axial tilt accept that it does basically nothing . http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg Common sense dictates that the orbital orientation of the Earth designated by the division between daylight and the Earth's orbital shadow changes against fixed axial orientation causing the seasons within a global perspective.Splitting the Earth into hemispheres and attributing an axial tilt variations that the Earth does not have is a poor sign for humanity given the concern for climate imbalance. Like the transfer of the pre-Copernican equablre 24 hour day by the early heliocentrists to constant and indepedent axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in total there is absolutely nothing difficult with attributing the correct process that leads to seasonal changes through changes in orbital orientation but the latter is much more urgent,either way both are built on the correct relationship between axial and orbital motion as opposed to the Newtonian sidereal format. It may be initially tricky to match the orientation of the Earth with Polaris and keep it constant and allow orbital motion to affect the seasonal changes but I see you 3 arguing to the contrary as representative of your empirical cult and your thinking ,borrowed from 18th century caqtaloguers,is threatening the ability of people to act on these matters such as climate change for if none of you can be trusted with what causes seasonal changes you doctorates are not worthg much. I resent having to doing your jobs for you while receiving this hail of childrish dithering in return. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
To Jonathan
Change in orbital orientation to fixed axial orientation,in other words the Earth's axis remains fixed as does its Equatorial orientation at 90 degrees to the polar axis and the Earth's orbital orientation to the Sun causes seasonal changes. This is not at all difficult and I assure you it is important for if you cannot attribute the correct causes for seasonal change after 500 years of heliocentricity,it sure looks dumb in an era that wants more information on climate change. http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg You and the other two guys are lazy and are relying on the maneuvering of 18th century cataloguers and it shows in the way you attribute causes for seasons using hemispherical terms and Equatorial orientations to the Sun or orbital plane. The actual cause is at roughly 90 degrees to the Equator and only at the Equinoxes does the terrestial axial longitude run parallel with orbital orientation which uses the daylight/orbital shadow line to demarcate the change in orientation over an annual cycle. So with obvious imbalances of climate upon us,if genuine investigators who get paid to do their jobs wish to drop the nonsense and start looking at things correctly,I ,you and everyone else will be better served to make correct assements and judgements that affect future generations. Having the Earth tilt towards the Sun while knowing the following orientation is fixed should spur somebody to start correcting things http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg The original heliocentrists worked off orbital motion of the Earth alone to infer heliocentricity which is why I include the motion of the Earth taking a faster and inner orbital circuit to Jupiter and Saturn in order to get people used to the change in orbital orientation passing through fixed axial orientation in generating seasonal changes - http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...turn_retro.gif The monomaniac stuff is all yours or rather Newton's inferior view of how retrograde motion is explained in direct conflict with the early heliocentrists such as Kepler and Galileo. "For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion distances," http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm The direct cause of a false attribution for seasonal changes is directly related to that Newtonian rubbish for the early heliocentrists recognised retrograde for what it was directly without appealing to a resolution by placiong a sun based observer and anyone looking at the motion of Jupiter and Saturn from an orbital perspective above can see how the first heliocentrists infered the heliocentric sytstem without that unethical framehopping jump to the Sun. This is why in the 21st century I have to fight the heliocentric case for seasonal changes by focusing on the Earth's orbital orientation changes rather than being stuck with axial tilt variations derived through 18th century cataloguers. Who gives a damn who does this as long as a correct attribution to seasonal changes is brought forward for consideration,you protect your long dead celebrities but I have an eye of coontemporary policy and a legacy that future generations might thank us for.But not before this obvious error is rectified and fast. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big dumb rockets vs. small dumb rockets | Andrew Nowicki | Policy | 28 | February 10th 05 12:55 AM |
Dumb SS1 questions | Henry Spencer | Technology | 23 | July 9th 04 07:08 PM |
Probably Dumb Questions | John | Research | 49 | May 6th 04 09:01 AM |
A Couple of Dumb Dew-Heater Questions | Craig Levine | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | January 25th 04 02:25 AM |
sub-amateur has dumb questions | paul beard | Amateur Astronomy | 16 | August 27th 03 10:34 PM |