Sky & Telescope's Weekly Bulletin - August 13, 2010

On Aug 19, 10:30*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:
On 19 Aug, 18:20, oriel36 wrote:
*Let me repeat my earlier point.

On 19 Aug, 08:01, oriel36 wrote:

You are trying to describe the moon's orbital motion and its
characteristic,not rotation.The moon's orbital circuit of the Earth is
entirely independent of the Earth's rotation so your analogy,however
quaint, actually expresses the opposite of what is intended.

You couldn't be more wrong. The moon's orbit is constantly being
modified by the Earth's rotation and vice versa.
The moon generates a tidal bulge on the Earth and it's oceans.
The Earth rotates faster than the moon's orbit and in the same
direction so the ocean's tidal bulge is speeded up by the Earth's
rotation which in turn speeds up the moon and moves it into a higher
orbit.
This process has been and still is being measured using the laser
reflectors placed on the moon by Apollo astronauts.


Disrespectful,although I have used repetitive explanations before
(however distasteful),I have never copied and pasted a previous
response as you have just done.It is already bad enough that there is
a growing casualness about this important topic whereas astronomers
would normally be engrossed is the line of reasoning which uses the
moon's lunar orbital cycle around the Earth to compare with the
Earth's orbital cycle around the Sun by concentrating on the
correlation between the orbital period and the orbital daylight/
darkness cycle common to both.

The Earth turns slowly through 360 degrees to the central Sun at a
point that is always 23 1/2 degrees perpendicular to the polar
coordinates and as it moves along its orbital circumference so that
the single orbital daylight/darkness cycle which matches its orbital
period can be compared with the moon's daylight/darkness cycle which
has a different orbital behavior as it makes a circuit of the Earth.




The reflector data shows that the moon is slowing the Eart's rotation
and that the Earth is widening the Moon's orbit.

You have no answer to this so you just ignore the facts and hope they
will go away.


To isolate the Earth's daily rotation,even in principle,will be an
enormously complicated task as it has never been done.




Try this thought experiment. Say to yourself "What if I am wrong and
everyone else in the world is right." Then open your mind, assume we
are right and see how everything falls into place. You will soon
realise how wrong-headed your views are.


No thanks,I can look out at the moon,see that it has no intrinsic
rotation and then can go on to compare the moon's orbital circuit
about the Earth with the Earth's orbital circuit around the Sun.In
short,if you believe that the moon rotates to the Earth,it is
impossible to comprehend how the Earth orbitally turns to the central
Sun thereby causing the seasons when allied with daily rotation.

There is no defense mentality,simply a new way to look at things using
modern imaging and if all you can believe is the moon 'rotates' then
good for you,at least you are vocal about it.For those who recognize
the monthly lunar cycle as an orbital trait,well there is so much work
to do that they simply will not have the time to dwell on old or bad
habits for too long,all the same,seeing lunar rotation where there is
none is pretty horrifying for all sorts of basic reasons.

I say again you are using a religious world - view to try to explain
scientific facts. You are also hampered by having no visual
imagination which makes it difficult for you to understand the
majority who don't have this handicap.


I rarely mention those things which some understand as God,religion or
faith or whatever level they comprehend something greater than
themselves,as a Christian,it is simply an integral part of my faith
even if the story handed down to this era is pretty much propaganda
designed to put denominational Christianity is the worst light and in
some ways the Church deserves it,even a person who loves Church
services and the good people in that community.I do watch the
empiricist flail around trying to promote the idea of religion or
faith as superstition but people are supposed to know better as they
get older and encounter what those of faith have achieved,science is
no different.A person who believes in 'time travel' in any shape or
form can't be religious as humans can't control time and it shows a
distinct respect for temporal forms in context of creation like a drop
of water meshes with an ocean yet is not an ocean.

There is so much to say here it is much easier to say as little as
possible insofar as people see their own loss of individuality and
courage that faith always allows,replaced by 'scientific method'
mantras which conceal more than they reveal.


Without Newton's equations there would be no spaceflight.

Don't be ridiculous,all Newton did was take a shortcut by building on
the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec effectively short circuiting any
productive applications empiricism had,the ability to use analogies to
extract useful hints that flow between astronomy and terrestrial
sciences stopped dead regardless of how it must have looked
originally.I made it my business to retain the ability to use
analogies as at experimental level but what Newton did was greedy in
the extreme by distorting the great achievements of the astronomers
engaged in planetary dynamics since Copernicus.

You don't want to hear that all of you are not just Newton's equal but
have the capacity to right the distortions he introduced simply by
using modern imaging and are therefore far superior to all that came
before you.Even I concede many were just trying to do their best with
the information they had but because of the way the thing was
originally set up,the whole thing was going to run out of steam as it
has lately.

So,have you got it fairly straight that this is as much about the
Earth's orbital behavior as it is the moon's and although I may not
have to consider it as a debate,it is likely other definitely will and
that is good for astronomy.





If Einstein were wrong about energy and mass equivalence there would
be no nuclear bombs.

Do you ignore these facts as well?