| |
Main
Date: 12 Sep 2007 04:11:33
From: oriel36
Subject: Something new
|
Keeping the same orbital face to the Sun -
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
Or actually changing orbital orientation through 360 degrees over an
annual orbit
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
For all the time spent here with the texts of
Copernicus,Kepler,Huygens ect and all the images,time lapse footage
and graphics and it all boils down to a new way to look at
things,using the change in orbital orientation to explain what
'variable axial tilt' tries to do.
You see how magnification adds to astronomy insofar as viewing other
planets helps to understand ours,the orbital orientation change of
Uranus being probably the most spectacular instance if people make
the effort.
It is something new for those with the intelligence or aptitude to
know it,not a novelistic fact but a dignified modification to the
original thinking of the great heliocentric astronomers.If I have
known the joy in adding to that tradition,I have known its opposite in
the silence of this era.
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 07:58:54
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Something new
|
oriel36 wrote:
> The insight is for the expansive person,one who can match what the
> motions are dictating and interpret them correctly -
>
> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
Orthodox astronomers produced these images, and found no surprises in
them.
I know, for example, that five years ago, the rings of Saturn were at
their most spectacular when viewed from Earth, and two years from now,
they will be viewed edge-on, and be nearly invisible.
> I repeat -The answer to the question - does the Earth keep the same
> face to the Sun over an annual orbit or changes it through 360
> degrees,the answer is the latter ,a correct intepretation of the
> images from Uranus supplies it along with the unequal length of the
> natural noon cycles.
The Earth changes the face it presents to the Sun over 360 degrees in
about 24 hours - plus or minus the few seconds in a single day needed
for the Equation of Time.
> Beyond is the sprawling climatological
> consequences of incorporating the new motion attached to orbital
> dynamics.
The planet Uranus orbits the Sun. The Sun is at the center of its
orbit, that's why we say that heliocentric, Sun-centered, astronomy is
correct. If it goes around the Sun, then, naturally, we would be
seeing different "sides" of Uranus, from our vantage point much closer
to the Sun, as it goes around the Sun. This doesn't require the axis
of Uranus to move; it can always point in the same direction.
Of course, people commonly think of the Moon as *not* turning on its
axis, because it always keeps the same face to the Earth. Astronomers
consider this to be a popular misconception, and view the fact of the
Moon's axial rotation to be that it rotates on its axis once a month,
keeping pace with its revolution around the Earth.
There is, though, a case for viewing the Moon's tidally-locked
situation as an absence of angular motion, because its relation to the
Earth, which holds it in orbit, dominates its environment much more so
than anything to do with the far-distant stars.
So, if you consider the synodic viewpoint to be the only valid one, I
suppose you could view the fact that the Earth's axis always points to
Polaris, over the course of the entire year, as indicating a "new
motion" - a sort of precession of the Earth's axis by 360 degrees
around the ecliptic pole in the course of a year.
While the synodic viewpoint is more natural to ordinary people; after
all, we think of a day as being 24 hours long, and not 23 hours, 56
minutes, and 4 seconds long; that doesn't mean that it serves us well
when we start considering the motions of the bodies of the Solar
System in general. Because the stars are far away, their angular
motions from the Earth are very slow indeed, and the backdrop of stars
serves as an approximation to, and a simple representation of, a non-
rotating frame of motion centered on the Sun, against which the
motions of the planets are most simply understood.
You can rail against "astrological geometry" and "empiricism" all you
want, but that doesn't change the fact that the conventional
understanding of the motions in the Solar System predicts we will be
in a changing relationship to the poles and the equatorial belt of
Uranus during the course of the Uranian year, and it predicts that
retrogades will result from one planet overtaking another - and, thus,
the images that you mention, while beautifully illustrating the
workings of the Solar System, do not threaten our understanding of
those workings, because that understanding is sound.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 05:55:26
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Something new
|
On Sep 15, 1:10 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > If this is inhuman or an injustice I do not know,it is not often that
> > a new insight can be appropriated with such speed but judging what
> > what your kind did to John Harrison,to the works of Huygens,Copernicus
> > and Kepler,it is not surprising even as it is disapoointing.
>
> It might also be noted that I would hardly steal your idea in such a
> way as to leave on Google Groups a permanent record of my perfidy!
>
> John Savard
The insight is for the expansive person,one who can match what the
motions are dictating and interpret them correctly -
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
I repeat -The answer to the question - does the Earth keep the same
face to the Sun over an annual orbit or changes it through 360
degrees,the answer is the latter ,a correct intepretation of the
images from Uranus supplies it along with the unequal length of the
natural noon cycles.Beyond is the sprawling climatological
consequences of incorporating the new motion attached to orbital
dynamics.
You carry on with your observational or magnification exercise and
stay clear of the sequence of images from Uranus,to misinterpret the
motions or rather not recognise how it applies to the Earth is
forgivable but this is an indulgence based on recognition of a poor
intuitive intelligence than any mastery of the subject material.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 05:10:47
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Something new
|
oriel36 wrote:
> If this is inhuman or an injustice I do not know,it is not often that
> a new insight can be appropriated with such speed but judging what
> what your kind did to John Harrison,to the works of Huygens,Copernicus
> and Kepler,it is not surprising even as it is disapoointing.
It might also be noted that I would hardly steal your idea in such a
way as to leave on Google Groups a permanent record of my perfidy!
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 11:06:56
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Something new
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2:58 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> If this is inhuman or an injustice I do not know,it is not often that
> a new insight can be appropriated with such speed but judging what
> what your kind did to John Harrison,to the works of Huygens,Copernicus
> and Kepler,it is not surprising even as it is disapoointing.
I can understand that you would be upset if I were stealing insights
from you, and claiming them as my own. I don't believe that I am doing
that, and I will attempt to offer some evidence in my defence.
> So,the answer to the question - does the Earth keep the same face to
> the Sun over an annual orbit or changes it through 360 degrees,the
> answer is the latter.
And I can prove that I already knew that, because...
As we all know, there are 24 hours in a day.
So, locations on the Earth turn to face the Sun once every 24 hours -
with slight errors, given by the Equation of Time, that average out
over the course of a year.
But the direction from the Earth that is facing the Sun is not
constant over the course of a year. It changes through 360 degrees. So
the 24 hours the Earth takes to face the Sun is not the same time as
the Earth needs to face _in the same direction_.
The Earth, instead, faces in the same direction *one extra time*
during a year, compared to the number of times a location faces the
Sun, because of that 360 degree circle.
And that means the Earth's axial rotation period is...
23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.
I can't help it if this is a concept you have so much trouble with
that you feel you have just "discovered" it a couple of days ago,
without having fully grasped its consequences as yet for the rest of
your issues with orthodox astronomy.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 08:35:02
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Something new
|
On Sep 14, 2:58 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > It is a shame that nobody is delighted at the discovery of a new
> > motion,the change in orbital orientation attached to orbital
> > motion.
>
> In heliocentric astronomy, the Earth goes around the Sun.
>
> So, the direction from the Earth to the Sun changes when it moves from
> one place to another in its orbit.
>
> This isn't a big new discovery. Walk around a building, and at one
> point, the building will be to your north, and later it will be to
> your east, and so on.
>
You are not interpreting the images of Uranus correctly and your
analogy is incorrect -
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/images/uranus_5year.jpg
The total length of the noon cycle is a global phenomena caused by a
change in orbital orientation making it a distinct new motion.It is a
great disappointment knowing that nobody recognises it as such and it
does it represent an endpoint for me.
> We knew this all along, and it is you who seems to be denying the
> existence of this motion by denouncing such things as the "sidereal
> day". Because the axial rotation having a different period from the
> solar day is a *consequence* of the change of orbital orientation.
> And, since the orbit is Keplerian, and causes the Equation of Time, no
> contradiction results from the Earth's axial rotation, in isolation,
> being uniform and clock-like.
>
> And I assure you I do not believe that the Earth always keeps the same
> face to the Sun. I no longer believe that even Mercury does that. But
> the Moon always keeps the same face to the Earth.
>
> John Savard
This is a genuine discovery whether people choose to believe it or
not,No doubt the mediocre will find a way to modify their concepts
which has a location facing the Sun every 24 hours thereby keeping
orbital orientation fixed and alter it to a changing orbital
orientation through an entire 360 degrees -
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
If this is inhuman or an injustice I do not know,it is not often that
a new insight can be appropriated with such speed but judging what
what your kind did to John Harrison,to the works of Huygens,Copernicus
and Kepler,it is not surprising even as it is disapoointing.
So,the answer to the question - does the Earth keep the same face to
the Sun over an annual orbit or changes it through 360 degrees,the
answer is the latter.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 18:58:41
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Something new
|
oriel36 wrote:
> It is a shame that nobody is delighted at the discovery of a new
> motion,the change in orbital orientation attached to orbital
> motion.
In heliocentric astronomy, the Earth goes around the Sun.
So, the direction from the Earth to the Sun changes when it moves from
one place to another in its orbit.
This isn't a big new discovery. Walk around a building, and at one
point, the building will be to your north, and later it will be to
your east, and so on.
We knew this all along, and it is you who seems to be denying the
existence of this motion by denouncing such things as the "sidereal
day". Because the axial rotation having a different period from the
solar day is a *consequence* of the change of orbital orientation.
And, since the orbit is Keplerian, and causes the Equation of Time, no
contradiction results from the Earth's axial rotation, in isolation,
being uniform and clock-like.
And I assure you I do not believe that the Earth always keeps the same
face to the Sun. I no longer believe that even Mercury does that. But
the Moon always keeps the same face to the Earth.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 13:33:36
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Something new
|
On Sep 13, 1:47 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> This was never meant for people like you and I do not mind that you
> believe that the Earth always keeps the same face to the Sun as your
> 'sidereal time' concepts for axial and orbital motion require.
>
> In the end,a simple thank you would be all that is required as people
> move on to make use of that new insight.
>
http://www.kevindustries.com/media/kw/files/bunny-pancake.jpg
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 11:47:21
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Something new
|
On Sep 13, 3:58 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > it all boils down to a new way to look at
> > things,using the change in orbital orientation to explain what
> > 'variable axial tilt' tries to do.
>
> But if that's the case, then establishment astronomy is not wrong.
>
> Because we don't claim that planets change their inclinations - at
> least not over the course of a single year. (Precession is very slow,
> taking thousands of years, so it does not cause the seasons.)
>
> Instead, the Earth is always tilted the same way, but because it
> orbits the Sun, the change in its position in that orbit changes
> whether the tilt points "to" the Sun or "away" from the Sun in the
> Northern Hemisphere.
>
> No variable axial tilt - just a change in orbital orientation.
>
It is a shame that nobody is delighted at the discovery of a new
motion,the change in orbital orientation attached to orbital
motion.The unequal noon cycles are easily recognised as the slow
majestic sweep of that orientation in accordance with Keplerian
orbital geometry causes a location to rotate back to noon in the
unequal way the cycles are observed.
This was never meant for people like you and I do not mind that you
believe that the Earth always keeps the same face to the Sun as your
'sidereal time' concepts for axial and orbital motion require.
In the end,a simple thank you would be all that is required as people
move on to make use of that new insight.
> In a previous post, you claimed that it was impossible for the
> "sidereal day" to be regularly 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds -
> because that would contradict the fact that the Earth's orbit is not
> uniform, since it is elliptical instead of circular.
>
> That would only make sense if it was *true* that locations on the
> Earth "turned to face the Sun in 24 hours exactly", because then a
> regular synodic motion of the Earth, plus an irregular orbital motion
> could not yield a regular axial motion for the Earth. But because that
> isn't true - you keep reminding us of the Equation of Time - that
> contradiction does not arise.
>
> Instead, the elliptical orbit of the Earth is one of the causes of the
> Equation of Time.
>
> You may feel I am mistaken, and you may have reasons to do so, but at
> the moment you appear to be ignoring the logical consequences of the
> claims you are making, which leads to you contradicting yourself,
> while establishment astronomy - despite occasional errors and
> oversimplifications on this or that website - presents a picture that
> is complete and logically consistent to those who understand it
> properly.
>
> It appears that the beginning of all this is the fact that you reject
> as invalid the use of the "fixed stars" as representing a good
> approximation to the motionless backdrop against which motions in the
> Solar System can be isolated. (Copernicus himself did not scruple
> against this approximation.) Then, by unnecessarily burdening yourself
> with complexity in understanding the motions of the Solar System, you
> went wrong somewhere in the enlarged mass of additions and
> subtractions involved in keeping track of these motions - leading to
> your claim that current astronomy isn't merely using an inaesthetic or
> otherwise unjustified perspective on its subject matter, but is
> actually in error regarding the facts of the phenomena.
>
> I would like to lead you out of error into knowledge, but as you
> refuse to hold your position up to continued examination, and only
> repeat yourself anew, you make it difficult to find your misconception
> (or, indeed, for me to find mine if, against all my understanding, I -
> and a great many current astronomers - am the one who is mistaken).
>
> John Savard
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 19:58:24
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Something new
|
oriel36 wrote:
> it all boils down to a new way to look at
> things,using the change in orbital orientation to explain what
> 'variable axial tilt' tries to do.
But if that's the case, then establishment astronomy is not wrong.
Because we don't claim that planets change their inclinations - at
least not over the course of a single year. (Precession is very slow,
taking thousands of years, so it does not cause the seasons.)
Instead, the Earth is always tilted the same way, but because it
orbits the Sun, the change in its position in that orbit changes
whether the tilt points "to" the Sun or "away" from the Sun in the
Northern Hemisphere.
No variable axial tilt - just a change in orbital orientation.
In a previous post, you claimed that it was impossible for the
"sidereal day" to be regularly 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds -
because that would contradict the fact that the Earth's orbit is not
uniform, since it is elliptical instead of circular.
That would only make sense if it was *true* that locations on the
Earth "turned to face the Sun in 24 hours exactly", because then a
regular synodic motion of the Earth, plus an irregular orbital motion
could not yield a regular axial motion for the Earth. But because that
isn't true - you keep reminding us of the Equation of Time - that
contradiction does not arise.
Instead, the elliptical orbit of the Earth is one of the causes of the
Equation of Time.
You may feel I am mistaken, and you may have reasons to do so, but at
the moment you appear to be ignoring the logical consequences of the
claims you are making, which leads to you contradicting yourself,
while establishment astronomy - despite occasional errors and
oversimplifications on this or that website - presents a picture that
is complete and logically consistent to those who understand it
properly.
It appears that the beginning of all this is the fact that you reject
as invalid the use of the "fixed stars" as representing a good
approximation to the motionless backdrop against which motions in the
Solar System can be isolated. (Copernicus himself did not scruple
against this approximation.) Then, by unnecessarily burdening yourself
with complexity in understanding the motions of the Solar System, you
went wrong somewhere in the enlarged mass of additions and
subtractions involved in keeping track of these motions - leading to
your claim that current astronomy isn't merely using an inaesthetic or
otherwise unjustified perspective on its subject matter, but is
actually in error regarding the facts of the phenomena.
I would like to lead you out of error into knowledge, but as you
refuse to hold your position up to continued examination, and only
repeat yourself anew, you make it difficult to find your misconception
(or, indeed, for me to find mine if, against all my understanding, I -
and a great many current astronomers - am the one who is mistaken).
John Savard
|
|
