Puzzle for Michael

Cross posted to sci.astro by the suggestion of Moosh.

Michael Davis wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:

More unattributed snippage noted.

Michael Davis wrote:

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Michael Davis wrote:

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Michael Davis wrote:

Your observations are irrelevant. They don't support your
contention that there is a fixed frame of reference that extends
to the stars, so no contradictory observations need to be
introduced. The onus of proof is upon you Mach supporters. Not
the rest of us.

Not my observation. Search 'sidereal period'.

And a note, I am not the person bringing Mach up. My interest is in the
observations, not causal explanations.


The definition is wrong because it assumes fixed background stars.
You can pretend they are fixed if that helps you visualize how
things work, but don't forget that you are just pretending.
there's nothing magical about the "sidereal period." Basically the
sidereal year is different from the solar year because the Earth
is both orbiting the Sun as well as rotating on its axis. So in a
year the Sun crosses the sky one more time than the stars do. BFD.

So, if sidereal time is meaningless, why use it as a period in
orbital mechanics?

Where did I say it was meaningless? I clearly explained the meaning
of "sidereal." It's not my fault if the real definition of the term
doesn't live up to your kooky expectations.

I'm sorry, I didn't see you define it. On the other hand:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astr...ealPeriod.html

Gee, another obviously wrong definition. Here's a free clue. Just
because you read something on a web site doesn't make it true.

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state....a00_part4.html
* Sidereal period:
* The period of a planet's revolution around the sun relative to the
fixed stars: its true period around sun
Astronomy 161
SOLAR SYSTEM ASTRONOMY
Professor Jay A. Frogel

Now why should I doubt a professor? A lot of edu pages say the same
thing. The star field is used because orbital mechanics doesn't work in
any other frame. Because L= mrv in this frame, it shows that the angular
momentum of the planets coincide with the star field.

I suspect I would have a more constructive conversation with a stone
than with you. You just remain in denial about the stars not being
fixed. Enjoy your 16th century mindset.

If snippage is valid for you, then it is valid for me too.

--- Flushed idiocy we have been over a dozen times already ---

One of the definitions of the term "kook" is when someone says or does
the same idiotic thing over and over again as if the results will be any
different than all the other times before. I think you have very
adequately defined yourself as a kook in this thread.

One more time, here are the observations. All you have to do is address
them. I haven't been able to get you to the point where L= mrv is
addressed. Don't simply claim it isn't so without addressing the
observations:

So, if sidereal time is meaningless, why use it as a period in orbital
mechanics? Does the math work in any other frame?

Why isn't the Foucault Pendulum a valid observation?
http://www.griffithobs.org/exhibits/.../pendulum.html
This is an example of the Coriolis effect, which is Newton's first law.

If matter could exist with angular momentum in a different frame of
reference than other matter, why have we have never observed a violation
of the conservation of angular momentum?

Do we observe that all the planets orbit relative to the same frame of
reference?

When you compare this frame of reference to the star field, does it
coincide?

Is the Sagnac effect also a valid observation of this frame?

--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often erroneously
attributed to P. T. Barnum)


Please don't remove sci.astro

I'm looking for constructive criticism for a page on rotation:
http://lakeweb.net/rotation.html

It is only initial thoughts, not outlined nor formatted.

Thanks, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom