The fate of the Earth?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Partially crystalline materials
Next: Speciation Process: Excrement Color Skin Proven Harmful (Poverty, Crime and Disease)
From: oriel36 on 16 Sep 2009 11:25 On Sep 16, 3:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > > When you have the words of John Harrison, the man who first give the > > world accurate watches,before you explaining how 4 minutes of rotation > > equates to 1 deg of geographical separation so that the Earth turns > > once in 24 hours along with all the characteristics of shape and > > rotation organised around that value and still insist on an > > alternative value without the slightest sign of objection from anyone > > else,you can bet there is a major collapse of scientific traditions.I > > am indeed alone presently within these forums but from a technical and > > historical perspective,I can back up every single point which restores > > stability to those areas of investigation which need it most such as > > planetary dynamics,timekeeping,structural astronomy and anywhere > > celestial cause meshes with terrestrial effects. > > It's interesting that you mention Harrison, as he measured sidereal > time with stars and earth references! :-o > Harrison checked the accuracy of the watch using the return of a star 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each night but that is a calendar based Ra/Dec convenience and does not apply to rotational or orbital dynamics as the convenience of the system works only off the equable 365/366 day calendar system while the equable day/calendar system uses natural noon for daily rotation while the orbital cycle uses the stellar background - "Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy." Huygens http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE A dumb empiricist jumps at the conclusion that the return of a star to a meridian represents constant daily rotation when all it represents is a calendar based timekeeping average,something totally different than the reasoning which creates the 24 hour average using natural noon and then transfers this observation to daily rotation as a constant,although the original equable day/calendar system takes a little effort to comprehend,there is nothing difficult in recognizing how the 24 hours of Monday turn into the 24 hours of Tuesday and so on as a timekeeping average,continue this way and allow daily rotation to be considered by the same facility that creates the 24 hour day in the first place - " Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation, " Huygens http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html So here we have Harrison and Huygens working through the development of details needed to use clocks as rulers of distance by tranfering time to distance organised around the Earth's rotational characteristics and geometry. > Rotation is absolute! The earth rotates exactly 360° in one sidereal > day, and that it rotates about one additional degree (~361° total) in > one solar day... and there are no contradictions. The Earth's Equatorial circumference is 40,075 km and divided into 15 degree/1 hour divisions amounts to 1669.8 km therefore the turn though 15 degrees in 1 hour or 1 degree in 4 minutes,at 60 degrees latitude the Earth turns at 837 km per hour and 55.8 km every 4 minutes - http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html I will not beg the question as to what distance you think the Earth covers through 15 degrees of rotation using the 'sidereal time' value as the great works of the inventors and astronomers have been treated rudely for far too long among people with the worst possible intentions,for you it is a game but for me it is my astronomical history you are distorting . Harrison knew this, > Newton knew this and almost everybody educated alive today knows this... > except for you! > Page 90-91 by Harrison himself if not by common sense - http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q=remarks&f=false > > > > A world which cannot express basic planetary facts correctly cannot > > reason properly in any other endeavor. > > I fully agree, Gerald. You've got a long way to go before correctly > understanding" basic planetary facts". > > I suggest you start by learning algebra and geometry! Another day goes by without any hint that it is dawning on people that the basic planetary facts of rotation and dimensions are lost through the 'sidereal time' reasoning which tries to compete with ancient traditions which support only the 24 hour value and the proper references assigned to planetary and orbital dynamics through the appropriate references. I do not know what to think of people who know full well that a collapse of Western sciences in astronomy,planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects of these dynamics has ultra severe consequences insofar as it is impossible to fit the 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value into planetary geography organised around the maximum/minimum rotational speeds.It is by far the darkest period known to humanity in these areas for it undoes some of the great achievements of astronomers stretching back to antiquity. Treason is a criminal offence and Western traditions,while not particular to an individual country,have suffered its worst assault by the empirical cult because it rots our heritage using the education system and perpetuates itself that way,the other option is a fool's pardon and that is what is assigned to you.
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Sep 2009 11:32 oriel36 wrote: > On Sep 16, 3:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> oriel36 wrote: >> >>> When you have the words of John Harrison, the man who first give the >>> world accurate watches,before you explaining how 4 minutes of rotation >>> equates to 1 deg of geographical separation so that the Earth turns >>> once in 24 hours along with all the characteristics of shape and >>> rotation organised around that value and still insist on an >>> alternative value without the slightest sign of objection from anyone >>> else,you can bet there is a major collapse of scientific traditions.I >>> am indeed alone presently within these forums but from a technical and >>> historical perspective,I can back up every single point which restores >>> stability to those areas of investigation which need it most such as >>> planetary dynamics,timekeeping,structural astronomy and anywhere >>> celestial cause meshes with terrestrial effects. >> It's interesting that you mention Harrison, as he measured sidereal >> time with stars and earth references! :-o >> > > Harrison checked the accuracy of the watch using the return of a star > 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each night That's right, Harrison knew that the earth's 360° rotation completed 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each night. Harrison was no dummy. [blather snipped for brevity] > > I will not beg the question as to what distance you think the Earth > covers through 15 degrees of rotation using the 'sidereal time' value > as the great works of the inventors and astronomers have been treated > rudely for far too long among people with the worst possible > intentions,for you it is a game but for me it is my astronomical > history you are distorting . > Nor would I be interested in such.
From: Androcles on 16 Sep 2009 12:05 "dow" <williamsdavid65(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1d74de8a-22a6-4429-addd-fa759768bc36(a)o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On Sep 16, 12:14 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > "dow" <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > The lateral component need not exist if the frame of reference is > rotating in an absolute sense. If the frame is rotating, both objects > can initially be stationary in it, but will still end up in orbit > after release. > ============================================ > No they won't, they'll approach as recede from each other. > The Earth approaches and recedes from the Sun, the Moon > approaches and recedes from the Earth. > The frame is rotating by your rules and you don't get to frame jump. If the frame is rotating at a constant speed, the two objects will be stationary when at their furthest distance apart, but will accelerate "sideways" as they fall toward each other, because of the Coriolis force. ============================================== http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov The ball is travelling in a perfect straight line (without friction, an artefact of doing the experiment on the earth's surface). There is no such animal as Coriolis "force". So they will have a non-zero angular velocity, even in the rotating frame, for almost all of each orbital revolution. =============================================== There is no such animal as Coriolis "force", so your "so" doesn't follow. =============================================== The point is that there is a unique non-rotating frame in which the objects fall directly toward each other. =============================================== The point is, you said "The lateral component need not exist if the frame of reference is rotating in an absolute sense". Now you say 'will accelerate "sideways" as they fall toward each other, because of the Coriolis force.' Which is it? =============================================== All other frames are rotating, in an absolute sense, and the behaviour of the objects is different. =============================================== When Newton said: LAW I. Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon, he was not talking about rotating frames. You are. > Newton stated that the absolutely stationary frame is the one in > which the sum of the momenta of all the objects within it is zero. > One can arbitrarily assign a velocity to the entire universe if it were > not for the fact that there is nothing against which that velocity > can be measured. Newton wasn't a modern cosmologist. I doubt that he'd have made that speculation if he'd known about cosmological expansion, or the concept of a boundless universe. =============================================== He'd laugh at all of you, as I do. Newton was a scientist and mathematician, not a modern cosmologist who mumbles Coriolis "force". =============================================== However, at any given location, such as our own, there is something against which we can measure velocity. This is the cosmic background radiation. To an observer with some velocity, which we can take to be zero, the radiation is essentially isotropic in all directions. To an observer who is moving relative to this zero, the radiation is blueshifted when viewed in his direction of motion, and redshifted in the reverse direction. ============================================= So go to a point in space where the shift is zero, and stay there. You'll be in Newton's absolute space. You can call that point the "origin" if you like, Newton won't mind. It's not Newton's fault the the Solar system is moving through the CMBR. ============================================= Einstein said that all linear (as opposed to rotational) motion is relative, with no absolute zero. ============================================= Did he? Cite where. I'll tell ya something. Rotational motion is relative, that's how it was discovered that the Earth goes around the Sun and not the Sun around the Earth once a day as we see it. Do you think the idiot Einstein discovered that? Copernicus may have something to say about that. ============================================= But Einstein wasn't a modern cosmologist either. The background radiation wasn't known in his time (except, I think, at the very end of his life). ============================================= Einstein died in 1956. The CMBR was discovered in 1964. You are guessing, wildly. What's the big deal about being a modern cosmologist? They are all idiots anyway...
From: oriel36 on 16 Sep 2009 12:48 On Sep 16, 4:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > On Sep 16, 3:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> oriel36 wrote: > > >>> When you have the words of John Harrison, the man who first give the > >>> world accurate watches,before you explaining how 4 minutes of rotation > >>> equates to 1 deg of geographical separation so that the Earth turns > >>> once in 24 hours along with all the characteristics of shape and > >>> rotation organised around that value and still insist on an > >>> alternative value without the slightest sign of objection from anyone > >>> else,you can bet there is a major collapse of scientific traditions.I > >>> am indeed alone presently within these forums but from a technical and > >>> historical perspective,I can back up every single point which restores > >>> stability to those areas of investigation which need it most such as > >>> planetary dynamics,timekeeping,structural astronomy and anywhere > >>> celestial cause meshes with terrestrial effects. > >> It's interesting that you mention Harrison, as he measured sidereal > >> time with stars and earth references! :-o > > > Harrison checked the accuracy of the watch using the return of a star > > 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each night > > That's right, Harrison knew that the earth's 360° rotation completed > 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each night. Harrison was no dummy. > > [blather snipped for brevity] > > > > > I will not beg the question as to what distance you think the Earth > > covers through 15 degrees of rotation using the 'sidereal time' value > > as the great works of the inventors and astronomers have been treated > > rudely for far too long among people with the worst possible > > intentions,for you it is a game but for me it is my astronomical > > history you are distorting . > > Nor would I be interested in such.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You can't give me a single site referencing the development of accurate clocks based on planetary geometry and organised around its rotational characteristics of 24 hours when I can promote any amount of historical references from any point of view,The attempt to diminish the principles which support rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour include ignoring some of the greatest engineering advancement by one person ,something like the engineering effort to put men on the moon - http://books.google.com/books?id=b5Wsw3rYVbEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=time+restored&ei=9pfoSb2GMKTYMNW4wccF#v=onepage&q=&f=false People like you are interested in novelistic junk which can't be challenged and that is fine as far as I am concerned,the real sciences of planetary dynamics and their effects would only interest people who can think for themselves instead of being stuck inside somebody else's 17th century imagination. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROz0-4ymuXQ Checking the accuracy of a watch using the Ra/Dec system where a star returns 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier to the same meridian each night is just a wonderful timekeeping average based on the calendar system and can be enjoyed when appreciated in that light but only the dumbest would launch into a conclusion that it represents a basis for planetary dynamics in spite of thousands of years of astronomy dictating that the reference for theannual motion of the Earth is the return of a star to a meridian while the Sun provides the reference for the daily motion of the Earth. The same guys who can't tell you what distance does the Earth's Equator cover through 360 degrees of rotation are the same ones promoting 'time travel' , the 'big bang' and now with those stupid concepts played out are moving into the climate arena.
From: oriel36 on 16 Sep 2009 14:54
On Sep 16, 5:05 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > "dow" <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1d74de8a-22a6-4429-addd-fa759768bc36(a)o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 16, 12:14 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> > wrote: > > > "dow" <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > The lateral component need not exist if the frame of reference is > > rotating in an absolute sense. If the frame is rotating, both objects > > can initially be stationary in it, but will still end up in orbit > > after release. > > ============================================ > > No they won't, they'll approach as recede from each other. > > The Earth approaches and recedes from the Sun, the Moon > > approaches and recedes from the Earth. > > The frame is rotating by your rules and you don't get to frame jump. > > If the frame is rotating at a constant speed, the two objects will be > stationary when at their furthest distance apart, but will accelerate > "sideways" as they fall toward each other, because of the Coriolis > force. > ============================================== > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov > > The ball is travelling in a perfect straight line (without friction, an > artefact of doing the experiment on the earth's surface). > There is no such animal as Coriolis "force". > > So they will have a non-zero angular velocity, even in the > rotating frame, for almost all of each orbital revolution. > =============================================== > There is no such animal as Coriolis "force", so your "so" > doesn't follow. > =============================================== > > The point is that there is a unique non-rotating frame in which the > objects fall directly toward each other. > =============================================== > The point is, you said > "The lateral component need not exist if the frame of reference is > rotating in an absolute sense". > Now you say 'will accelerate "sideways" as they fall toward each > other, because of the Coriolis force.' > > Which is it? > =============================================== > All other frames are > rotating, in an absolute sense, and the behaviour of the objects is > different. > > =============================================== > When Newton said: > LAW I. > Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right > line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed > thereon, > he was not talking about rotating frames. > You are. > > > Newton stated that the absolutely stationary frame is the one in > > which the sum of the momenta of all the objects within it is zero. > > One can arbitrarily assign a velocity to the entire universe if it were > > not for the fact that there is nothing against which that velocity > > can be measured. > > Newton wasn't a modern cosmologist. I doubt that he'd have made that > speculation if he'd known about cosmological expansion, or the concept > of a boundless universe. > =============================================== > He'd laugh at all of you, as I do. Newton was a scientist and mathematician, > not a modern cosmologist who mumbles Coriolis "force". Newton was indeed a mathematician and would not have had the ability to spot the dangers of projecting the Earth's rotational geometry into space and coming to a conclusion which beggars belief in attempting to force right ascension into the isolated dynamic of daily rotation insofar as it equates a rotating celestial sphere with a stationary Earth and a rotating Earth with a stationary celestial sphere.They knew of this observation back in the early 16th century and looked at it with horror and eventually came up with the arguments for planetary dynamics to account for the observation - "And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa Today they embrace the horror as the 'big bang' and celebrate what men once ran from ,all because Isaac did not spot the flaw of the equatorial coordinate system which helps astronomers keep their telescopes tracking objects within the 365/366 day calendar system. As far as it goes,I have yet to see a single dynamicist ,apart from Mach,come within a hundred miles of what Isaac was actually doing so laugh all you will,you are still running inside the cage Newton created for you or rather the celestial sphere cage constructed by Flamsteed. |