|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |