A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Relativity question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 14th 05, 07:54 PM
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relativity question

To Klazmon

Pity you do not practice what you preach or maybe it is that you are
incapable of spotting a technical error out of indoctrination or
incompetence.

The Earth's axial rotation through 360 degrees on its axis is a single
and distinct event.It does not rely on any external reference no more
that any other object in motion does.

The original designation of time as hours,minutes and seconds emerged
from a concept of the equable 24 hour day,this was transfered to the
principle of indepedent axial rotation by the early heliocentrists as
rotation at 15 degrees per hour.They knew no external reference for
indepdent axial rotation existed for they retained the pre-Copernican
noon Equation of Time correction in order to fix clocks to axial
rotation.

The siderealists/Newtonians attribute TWO values for axial rotation by
using external references,one rotation through 360 degrees to the Sun
in 24 hours exactly and one rotation through 360 degrees to the stars
in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.It does not happen except in diseased minds
who know no better however those minds are some of the biggest
institutions on the planet.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

The point of the story is that this unethical 23 hours 56 min 04 secs
of a 24 hour day has no astronomical justication and is simply a
homogenised calendrical average for axial and orbital motion.Poor fools
may like the word 'consistent' but I assure you that your system is the
most astronomical unstable system ever devised.No wonder you resort to
relativistic homocentricity to get out of Newtonian
quasi-geocentricity.

  #22  
Old November 14th 05, 08:26 PM
Shawn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relativity question

oriel36 wrote:

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/7404.jpg


Strangepersons.com huh?

snip

So,let's take Newton apart -

" Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of
the Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]... But this inequality has no
respect to the position of the Earth, and in the three interior
Satellites is insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of
their Gravity. " Opticks 1704

The inequality of times sure does from the motion and position of the
Earth , Io happens to be Jupiter's innermost satellite and Roemer's
insight has nothing to do with gravity.

It is easier to comprehend Roemer's insight without having to go
through the bluffing and blustering of Newton and I assume there are
people who would not mind accepting the real challenge that Roemer's
insight provides.

The uncharted territory of modelling the positions of galaxies to the
rotation of the foreground Milky Way stars using supernova data and
Roemer's insight is breathtaking but the outlines of these mountainous
regions for real human endeavor is still laid low by the manipulations
of a 17th century theorist who had no feel for these things.



http://sts.synflood.de/dump/fun/than...dedcat_002.jpg


  #23  
Old November 14th 05, 10:55 PM
Llanzlan Klazmon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relativity question

"oriel36" wrote in news:1131994445.107099.295730
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

To Klazmon

Pity you do not practice what you preach or maybe it is that you are
incapable of spotting a technical error out of indoctrination or
incompetence.


A pity you can't read and therefore post a total non sequitur to the topic
of this thread.

Klazmon

SNIP
  #24  
Old November 15th 05, 12:24 PM
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relativity question

To Klazmon

A brute mentality has no feel for astronomy or astronomical methods,it
always shows in your replies insofar as this place is less like a forum
and more like a chatroom.

It is easy to see that Newton transfered Flamsteed's axial
rotational/stellar circumpolar equivalency at 23 hours 56 min 04 sec
to a heliocentric/geocentric orbital equivalency but Newtonian
disciples like you never seem to recognise the misconduct,not just
Falmsteed's erroneous 'proof' for his conceptual equivalency but
Newton's also .

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/...S/AACHCIR0.JPG

Newton was getting his mean Sun/Earth distances from Flamsteed's
burying of the exquisite Equation of Time principles by homogenising
axial and orbital motion into a calendrical average and dumping the
difference between the 24 hour day and the average calendrical return
of a star to the same position in a .986 deg/3 min 56 sec orbital
displacement.

What a shortcut !,what a mess but a vwery convenient one for
quasi-geocentrists and Newtonians -

"PHENOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

I recommend that people who wish to become heliocentric astronomers
first become familiar with the Copernican resolution for retrogrades
which infers the Earth to remain orbitting the Sun and jettisoning any
approach that finds the Sun around the Earth (Like Newton did0 to be
valid in any shape or form.


If the price of following Newton is that the English will be
highlighted as people with creationist like mentalities the I am sure
many will be quite pleased but I have appealed for as long as I can for
a neccesary astronomical conceptual audit and not engage in the
exotic expansion of Newtonian quasi-geocentricity into relativistic
homocentricity.

There has to be at least a few people willing to engage this dire
situation brought on by 17th century misconduct

  #25  
Old November 15th 05, 12:56 PM
Ioannis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relativity question

"oriel36" wrote in message
oups.com...

To Klazmon

[snip]

There has to be at least a few people willing to engage this dire
situation brought on by 17th century misconduct


Is there *anyone* here who's managed to understand what this guy is trying
to say in *any one* of his posts? :-)
--
I. N. Galidakis
Eventually, _everything_ is understandable

  #26  
Old November 15th 05, 01:48 PM
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relativity question

To Gallidakis

You will no doubt perfectly understand the National Matime Museum's
explanation for the sidereal day and its astronomical justification -

"Each solar day the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the Sun.
Similarly the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the background stars
in a sidereal day. During each solar day, the motion of the Earth
around the Sun means the Earth rotates 361º with respect to the
background stars."

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000

Maybe you would like that Wikipedia variation -

"sidereal time is larger by one hour (note that it wraps around at 24
hours). "

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

These things are a long way from the exquisite Equation of Time
correction which straddles pre-Copernican and heliocentricic astronomy
and fixes the principle of axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour to
axial rotation and 24 hours/360 degrees in total.

You are just freaks of humanity is the way you think and justify your
calendrically based celestial sphere.Get the relationship betwen axial
and orbital motion wrong and you can forget astronomy.

  #27  
Old November 15th 05, 09:41 PM
Skywise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relativity question

"Ioannis" wrote in news:1132055773.345264@athnrd02:

Snipola.
Is there *anyone* here who's managed to understand what this guy is trying
to say in *any one* of his posts? :-)


Perhaps with all the concentration on manufacturing oseltamivir
there's now a shortage of psychotropics.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts
  #28  
Old November 15th 05, 09:57 PM
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relativity question

To Brian

You are the freak who believes in convection cells as a mechanism for
crustal motion.

Go study fluid dynamics and observe that rotating fluid/gas celestial
objects display both differential rotation and an Equatorial bulge.

As the only person alive to recognise that the Earth's deviation from a
perfect sphere constitutes a geological feature I have no problem
working out exactly what Newton only guessed at.The uni-directional
differential rotation bands running in great rivers in the
fluid-plastic mantle generate the Bulge,supply the evolution of new
crust and partialy influence terrestial surface features.

It would be nice if the geologists started to recognise the largest
terrestial feature of all - the shape of the planet.

As for you,stick with your midget minded convection cells and your
stationary Earth ,if any person wants to observe what differential
rotation bands look like they can take it from the Sun -

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif

Differential rotation bands in the fluid-plastic mantle cause the Earth
to deviate from a perfect sphere because to imagine otherwise is to
make the Earth and exception.I could not give a damn if you understood
the principle or not,as far as I can see you intellectual midgets do
not know what to do when encountering common sense
descriptions,astronomical,terrestial and bottom line.

  #29  
Old November 16th 05, 01:43 AM
Skywise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relativity question

"oriel36" wrote in news:1132088226.690071.98160
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

To Brian


Didn't I tell you to zark off once already?


You are the freak who believes in convection cells as a mechanism for
crustal motion.


Why is it that pseudoscientists must always resort to such childish
name calling when someone calls their cards?


Go study fluid dynamics and observe that rotating fluid/gas celestial
objects display both differential rotation and an Equatorial bulge.


The equatorial bulge is nothing more than the result of centrifugal
forces acting on a spinning body.


As the only person alive to recognise


That tells a lot. Have you given any thought as to why you and only
you have recognised this supposedly important fact? Are you special
in some way?


that the Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere


The Earth deviates from a perfect sphere by less than 3/10ths of
one percent. Other planets in the solar system are more oblate
than the Earth.


constitutes a geological feature I have no problem
working out exactly what Newton only guessed at.The uni-directional
differential rotation bands running in great rivers in the
fluid-plastic mantle generate the Bulge,supply the evolution of new
crust and partialy influence terrestial surface features.


Mars exhibits an equatorial bulge 2.2 times larger than the Earth.
If the bulge is caused as you say, then why does Mars not exhibit
"terrestial [sic] surface features" similar to, nay, more extant
than on Earth? Having a larger equatorial bulge implies - using
your theory - differential rotation bands of greater magnitude
than on Earth. If these motions are so much greater, why is Mars
so geologically "dead"?


It would be nice if the geologists started to recognise the largest
terrestial feature of all - the shape of the planet.

As for you,stick with your midget minded convection cells and your
stationary Earth ,if any person wants to observe what differential
rotation bands look like they can take it from the Sun -

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif


The Sun is a plasma/gas. The earth is a solid/liquid. Let's
compare apples to apples, shall we?

Oh, by the way, the Sun's equatorial bulge is over 300 times less
than the Earth's. Yet it exhibits far more of your "differential
rotation bands" than the Earth does.



Differential rotation bands in the fluid-plastic mantle cause the Earth
to deviate from a perfect sphere because to imagine otherwise is to
make the Earth and exception.


Hmmm...the Sun exhibits differential rotation bands to a far greater
extent than the Earth. Why then is the Sun's equatorial bulge 373
times SMALLER than the Earths? If differential rotation bands "cause"
the equatorial bulge as you claim, why is the Sun's so much smaller
than the Earth's?


I could not give a damn if you understood
the principle or not,as far as I can see you intellectual midgets do
not know what to do when encountering common sense
descriptions,astronomical,terrestial and bottom line.


Again with the childish name calling and ranting. Is your position
so weak that you can't defend it otherwise?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts
  #30  
Old November 16th 05, 08:30 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relativity question


Skywise wrote:

"oriel36" wrote in news:1132088226.690071.98160
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

To Brian


Didn't I tell you to zark off once already?


You are the freak who believes in convection cells as a mechanism for
crustal motion.


Why is it that pseudoscientists must always resort to such childish
name calling when someone calls their cards?


You are a freak who believes that convection cells are the mechanism
for crustal motion,this is not an offensive statement but roughly
correct given that you have a real mechanism in differential rotation
bands in front of you.



Go study fluid dynamics and observe that rotating fluid/gas celestial
objects display both differential rotation and an Equatorial bulge.


The equatorial bulge is nothing more than the result of centrifugal
forces acting on a spinning body.


Centrifugal forces,yeah,yeah yeah,this has been the story for hundreds
of years and it will tell you why the Earth and all rotating celestial
objects are spheres but it is useless to explain deviations from a
perfect sphere.

I wonder if there are any other bright sparks who can grasp this easy
to understand and observable principle.




As the only person alive to recognise


That tells a lot. Have you given any thought as to why you and only
you have recognised this supposedly important fact? Are you special
in some way?


Perhaps you are the one who is special for it takes quite an effort to
miss the shape of the Earth as a geological feature.Unless you live in
a cave you would know that the Earth's fractured crust is composed of
plates that are subject to rotational forces in the plastic-molten
mantle.As all rotating celestial objects display both differential
rotation and a bulge,it takes quite a special person to ignore it.

Want to see it again ? -

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif





that the Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere


The Earth deviates from a perfect sphere by less than 3/10ths of
one percent. Other planets in the solar system are more oblate
than the Earth.


constitutes a geological feature I have no problem
working out exactly what Newton only guessed at.The uni-directional
differential rotation bands running in great rivers in the
fluid-plastic mantle generate the Bulge,supply the evolution of new
crust and partialy influence terrestial surface features.


Mars exhibits an equatorial bulge 2.2 times larger than the Earth.
If the bulge is caused as you say, then why does Mars not exhibit
"terrestial [sic] surface features" similar to, nay, more extant
than on Earth? Having a larger equatorial bulge implies - using
your theory - differential rotation bands of greater magnitude
than on Earth. If these motions are so much greater, why is Mars
so geologically "dead"?


The composition of the mantle changes from planet to planet as does the
rates of rotation.If you wish to argue differential rotation bands out
of existence in order to keep convection cells as a mechanism for
crustal motion then be my guest.

Btw,it is not a theory,the shape of a rotating celestial object will be
a sphere,a deviation from a perfect sphere (and 40 km is not small
deviation over the total shape of the Earth) can be ascertianed from
observing uni-directional differential rotation bands.




It would be nice if the geologists started to recognise the largest
terrestial feature of all - the shape of the planet.

As for you,stick with your midget minded convection cells and your
stationary Earth ,if any person wants to observe what differential
rotation bands look like they can take it from the Sun -

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif


The Sun is a plasma/gas. The earth is a solid/liquid. Let's
compare apples to apples, shall we?

Oh, by the way, the Sun's equatorial bulge is over 300 times less
than the Earth's. Yet it exhibits far more of your "differential
rotation bands" than the Earth does.


Geologists should have a ball adjusting the composition and densities
in the mantle to suit both the Equatorial bulge and to give crustal
evolution and motion some teeth.



Differential rotation bands in the fluid-plastic mantle cause the Earth
to deviate from a perfect sphere because to imagine otherwise is to
make the Earth and exception.


Hmmm...the Sun exhibits differential rotation bands to a far greater
extent than the Earth. Why then is the Sun's equatorial bulge 373
times SMALLER than the Earths? If differential rotation bands "cause"
the equatorial bulge as you claim, why is the Sun's so much smaller
than the Earth's?


Composition, densities,rate of rotation ect.




I could not give a damn if you understood
the principle or not,as far as I can see you intellectual midgets do
not know what to do when encountering common sense
descriptions,astronomical,terrestial and bottom line.


Again with the childish name calling and ranting. Is your position
so weak that you can't defend it otherwise?


I am especially proud of the differential rotation bands as a mechanism
for both bulge and crustal motion,at least partially responsible for
terrestial surface features.I never imply that there is a desperate
need for a mechanism but anyone who approaches the new mechanism will
find it almost impossible to return to convection cells/stationary
Earth.

It is not my fault that everyone is intent in shooting themselves in
the foot with the 'scientific method' when simple intution will
do.There are so many avenues open when people leave the empirical
mantras and this just happens to be one avenue among many that is
ignored.






Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts


 




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
Putting relativity to the test, NASA's Gravity Probe B experimentis one step away from revealing if Einstein was right (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 October 7th 05 05:09 AM
GravityShieldingUpdates1.1 Stan Byers Research 3 March 23rd 05 02:28 PM
A Question For Those Who Truly Understand The Theory of Relativity (Was: Einstein's GR as a Gauge Theory and Shipov's Torsion Field) Larry Hammick Astronomy Misc 1 February 26th 05 03:22 AM
Foundations of General Relativity, Torsion & Zero Point Energy Jack Sarfatti Astronomy Misc 2 July 7th 04 04:32 AM
Beginner question about gravity Ed L. Amateur Astronomy 9 November 12th 03 05:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:19 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.