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 20 Sep 2009 05:14 On Sep 20, 4:00 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 18, 2:44 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 9:08 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 15, 12:58 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 15, 7:49 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 15, 3:32 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 11:06 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, dow <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The bottom line is that there's no fixed reference anywhere against > > > > > > > > > which to measure the Earth's rotation period; it isn't even measurable > > > > > > > > > against itself, though its absolute rotation _rate_ is measurable. > > > > > > > > > Ummm.. There is (or at least there is thought to be) an absolutely non- > > > > > > > > rotating frame of reference, independent of observations of stars, > > > > > > > > etc.. It's the frame in which there are no centrifugal or Coriolis > > > > > > > > forces. Theoretically, the absolute speed of rotation of he earth is > > > > > > > > its speed relative to this frame. > > > > > > > > No, there's no such external reference. > > > > > > > > Besides, I said its _period_ (length of a day) is not independently > > > > > > > measurable. > > > > > > > Grow up for godness sake and think like a man. > > > > > > You are an arrogant prick. You must be French. > > > > > > You asked what you apparently assumed was a simple question (it > > > > > wasn't) and I gave you the most honest answer I know. That evidently > > > > > wasn't good enough to satisfy you. Too bad for you. > > > > > > > The Earth , as a sphere, will rotate at different speeds from a > > > > > > maximum speed at the Equator down to zero at the geographical > > > > > > poles.The values for an observer at the Equator is 1669.8 km for every > > > > > > 15 degrees of rotation covering the complete 40,075 km circumference > > > > > > through 360 degrees,at 60 degrees latitude,the rotational speed is 837 > > > > > > km for every 15 degrees/1 hour and the same for all latitudes in the > > > > > > table - > > > > > > >http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables... > > > > > > > There is a cause and effect of different latitudinal speeds which > > > > > > would be fairly easy to acknowledge in an era of air travel where most > > > > > > people are aware of the rapid transition from daylight to darkness > > > > > > the further towards the Equator and obversely,the longer twilights > > > > > > experienced towards the geographical poles.At any given moment,a > > > > > > location at the Equator is transiting at 1669.8 km per hour through > > > > > > the circle of illumination generating a swift transition to darkness > > > > > > while at 60 degrees latitude,the transition is longer due to the speed > > > > > > of 837 km or 833 km less than the Equator speed. > > > > > > Blah, blah, blah. Yes, I know all that. > > > > > Good !,that makes you my first attentive student now go teach the rest > > > > what you just comprehended. > > > > I didn't "just" comprehend it, I certainly am not your "student", > > > and everyone else already knows it as well. I said as much when I > > > described the three kinds of "day". Weren't you paying attention? > > > You don't realize that the latitudinal variations n twilight > > You refuse to realize that you are still timing the Earth's rotation > period against the Sun, and IT MOVES. > > So, be a man, and admit there is no solid, unmoving reference > against which to measure the Earth's rotation period. > > You cannot provide a method to INDEPENDENTLY measure the Earth's > rotation period. > Oh great !,I've spent 8 years explaining that there is no external reference for independent rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours and now have it thrown back at me as an assertion.What any intelligent person can do is realise that the natural noon cycles are unequal,it is corrected to a 24 hour average and then transfered to daily rotation as a constant by the same facility which creates the 24 hour day.Just as the 24 hours of Monday turns into the 24 hours of Tuesday ect,one 360 degree rotation turns into the next 360 degree rotation hence clocks act as rulers of time distance for each 4 minutes/1 degree of rotation making 24 hours/360 degrees in total.This is why the 24 hour value contains all the basic planetary information of shape,dimensions and rotational speeds all organised around the Earth rotational characteristics. It is not rocket science and it takes only a few minutes to appreciate that daily rotation is referenced to natural noon instead of that ridiculous 'sidereal time' reasoning which attempts to use an imaginary celestial sphere as a reference.Unlike other generations who did not spot the late 17th century catastrophe ,it is possible to work through the errors and distortions which has seen anything relating to planetary dynamics and its terrestrial effects or structural astronomy go into a deep freeze and even allowing for the majority of old guys here who no intention of giving up their indoctrination,there would still be others who know that something went badly wrong somewhere considering the present state of affairs. Here is what you do,stick with your elaborate wordplay but ultimately you are trapped within Isaac's imagination and the celestial sphere framework he built on. > > > My point is that you cannot measure the Earth's rotation _period_ > > > without using an external reference, and THEY ALL MOVE. > > Work with the Earth's daily rotation as it moves through the circle of > > illumination and come up with the latitudinal variations in twilight > > and you won't have to worry about insisting on external references > > No "twilight" without using the external reference of the Sun. > > You cannot provide a method to INDEPENDENTLY measure the Earth's > rotation period. > > > > > > > > > > > A reasonable > > > > > > person,and there are not many at the moment,accepts the cause and > > > > > > effect with the values reflecting rotation through 360 degrees in 24 > > > > > > hours and then teaches their students or kids properly. > > > > > > 360 degrees _measured against what_? You _cannot_ measure the > > > > > rotation of the Earth against itself only. > > > > > The transition from daylight to darkness > > > > You cannot measure the rotation of the Earth against the sun because > > > IT MOVES. > > > Who are you or anyone else to place limitations on interpretation,at > > any given moment,a location at the Equator is turning through 1669.8 > > km for every 15 degrees of rotation and a full 40,075 km rotation > > through 360 degrees and consequently in 24 hours. > > How do you know that? You measure it against the Sun or some other > _external_ reference. > > You cannot provide a method to INDEPENDENTLY measure the Earth's > rotation period. > > > > > > > > > > You appear to be _assuming_ that the solar day is the only "proper" > > > > > day. That's all very nice, but it varies through the year and is > > > > > therefore a poor standard. It is also completely useless for aiming > > > > > astronomical telescopes. > > > > > Grow up for goodness sake > > > > Don't just deliver vague attempts at insult, contradict me with facts, > > > if you can. > > > Insults indeed !,you insult yourselves and it really takes no effort > > from me,there is a chance one or two might wake up from this empirical > > snoozing long enough to see Huygens or Harrison explain the technical > > details contained in the 24 hour clock and its relationship to > > planetary geometry organised around its rotational characteristics. > > >http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=one... > > > Page 90-91 explains it all from the person who come up with the > > technology for the first accurate watches based on rotation in 24 > > hours. > > Not relevant. > > You cannot provide a method to INDEPENDENTLY measure the Earth's > rotation period. > > > > > I am considered a madman for promoting the rotation of the Earth once > > > > in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour > > > > Measured against what, the sun? IT MOVES! > > > > Also, the _rate_ of rotation of the Earth IS NOT constant; it varies > > > over many time scales hence your claim is falsified. > > > Once you have an idea in your head and especially that 'sidereal time > > junk,it appears impossible for you to think otherwise. > > You are blinded by your obsession. You appear to have me confused > with someone who prefers the "sidereal" day as more "real" than any > other. I am not. You should have figured that out when you first > noticed that I put the word "sidereal" in quotes. That was apparently > too subtle for you, so I TOLD you that I put it in quotes because it > is ARBITRARY due to the fact that its reference point MOVES through > the sky. > > Do you get it yet? I AM NOT A PROPONENT OF THE "SIDEREAL" DAY. > > > The 24 hour day/ > > calendar system was created in antiquity,the average 24 hour day > > itself is an average cycle based on the natural noon reference,no more > > or less.but the Equation of Time correction allows the 24 hour cycle > > to represent an average of natural noons over the course of an annual > > cycle thereby allowing you the facility of having the 24 hours of > > Friday turn into the 24 hours of Saturday.Am I going to fast for you > > or do you wish to take it further ? > > I had all that a long time ago. My point is that the Solar day is as > ARBITRARY as the other two commonly used sorts of "day" because their > reference points MOVE. You seem to think the solar day is more "real". > It is not. > > > > You are indeed insane, right up there with the Einstein-haters. > > > You call me insane for promoting the sprawling history and technical > > details behind rotation in 24 hours but you cannot give me a single > > instance before Flamsteed which hitched daily rotation to the > > background stars. > > That. Is. Not. Relevant. To. My. Point. > > You cannot provide a method to INDEPENDENTLY measure the Earth's > rotation period. > > > > > You are arguing against planetary geometry/geography which states that > > > > the Equatorial Earth rotates through 1669.8 km every 15 degrees and > > > > its entire 40,075 km circumference in 24 hours > > > > You keep asserting that as if you have some evidence. What is it? > > >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg > > > There you go,use the spine which connects the geographical poles as a > > substitute for the circle of illumination and turn the globe 15 > > degrees and you will see it covers a geographical distance of 1669.8 > > km at the Equator and a full 40,075 km circumference through 360 > > degrees where 15 degrees represents 1 hour difference regardless of > > latitude. > > Not relevant. You are not demonstrating an independent method of > measuring the Earth's rotation period. > > > > > > > > > > > However, there is no existing way in which this speed can be measured > > > > > > > > to more than a few digits of precision, so for practical purposes we > > > > > > > > have to use the "fixed" stars, even though we know they are not really > > > > > > > > fixed. > > > > > > > > Horsefeathers. > > > > > > > Horsefeathers you say !,take off that late 17th century powdered wig > > > > > > and start thinking like a man or be left behind.You do not need to be > > > > > > too smart to appreciate how the planet ,as a sphere, rotates through > > > > > > 360 degrees at different speeds with definite values for each > > > > > > latitudinal location with definite effects following from basic > > > > > > planetary facts of dimensions and rotational characteristics so drop > > > > > > that nonsense of the 'fixed stars' and a really,really stupid > > > > > > 'sidereal time' reasoning. > > > > > > Yes, horsefeathers. There is NO non-moving external standard against > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Sep 2009 10:28 oriel36 wrote: > On Sep 20, 4:00 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> You cannot provide a method to INDEPENDENTLY measure the Earth's >> rotation period. >> > > Oh great !,I've spent 8 years explaining that there is no external > reference for independent rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours and > now have it thrown back at me as an assertion. That's because the external reference like the "fixed stars" show that the earth turns exactly exactly 360° in 86,164.09+ seconds. Furthermore, because the earth is moving around the sun, it has to turn about one additional degree to line up with the noon sun. What any intelligent > person can do is realise that the natural noon cycles are unequal,it > is corrected to a 24 hour average and then transfered to daily > rotation as a constant by the same facility which creates the 24 hour > day.Just as the 24 hours of Monday turns into the 24 hours of Tuesday > ect,one 360 degree rotation turns into the next 360 degree rotation > hence clocks act as rulers of time distance for each 4 minutes/1 > degree of rotation making 24 hours/360 degrees in total.This is why > the 24 hour value contains all the basic planetary information of > shape,dimensions and rotational speeds all organised around the Earth > rotational characteristics. > Gerald, what you "want" is not the way nature works. Move on!
From: dow on 20 Sep 2009 11:19 On Sep 19, 10:10 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 18, 2:24 pm, dow <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 18, 3:26 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Further evidence in favour of Mach's principle comes from cosmology.. > > > > If rotational motion is purely relative > > > > It isn't. Look up "Foucalt pendulum". > > > Gyroscopes are nicer. > > (sorry for the blank post; new trackball mouse is extra sensitive) > > Whatever your preference. The Foucault pendulum is easier to track > IMO. > > > Sure. These devices show that the earth is turning relative to some > > *absolute* zero of rotation. But Mach suggested, and a lot of people > > agree, that this zero is *defined by* the universe as a whole. The > > universe is not rotating > > We don't know that either. It could be rotating _very_ slowly. You misunderstood me. My sentence "The universe is not rotating." was intended as part of Mach's suggestion. If he was wrong then, indeed, the universe could be rotating extremely slowly. > > Mark L. Fergerson dow
From: Steve Willner on 22 Sep 2009 16:32 [Newsgroups snipped] In article <94c69346-3631-4b8a-bd85-007c14d03798(a)m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, dow <williamsdavid65(a)gmail.com> writes: > There is (or at least there is thought to be) an absolutely non- >rotating frame of reference, independent of observations of stars, >etc.. It's the frame in which there are no centrifugal or Coriolis >forces. Theoretically, the absolute speed of rotation of he earth is >its speed relative to this frame. Spacecraft gyros measure rotation in this frame to something like a few arcseconds per hour. The gyros on GPB were supposed to have been quite a lot better. (The specifications are probably on the web somewhere.) >However, there is no existing way in which this speed can be measured >to more than a few digits of precision, so for practical purposes we >have to use the "fixed" stars, even though we know they are not really >fixed. I'm not sure what you mean by "a few digits of precision," but practical Earth-rotation measurements are by VLBI with quasars as reference sources. A single measurement is probably accurate to a few milli-arcseconds. I had a brief glance at the IERS web site http://www.iers.org/MainDisp.csl?pid=163-253 but didn't see actual values. They're probably on the web site somewhere. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner(a)cfa.harvard.edu Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
From: oriel36 on 23 Sep 2009 00:21
On Sep 22, 9:32 pm, will...(a)cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: > [Newsgroups snipped] > > In article <94c69346-3631-4b8a-bd85-007c14d03...(a)m20g2000vbp.googlegroups..com>, > > dow <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > There is (or at least there is thought to be) an absolutely non- > >rotating frame of reference, independent of observations of stars, > >etc.. It's the frame in which there are no centrifugal or Coriolis > >forces. Theoretically, the absolute speed of rotation of he earth is > >its speed relative to this frame. > > Spacecraft gyros measure rotation in this frame to something like a > few arcseconds per hour. The gyros on GPB were supposed to have been > quite a lot better. (The specifications are probably on the web > somewhere.) > > >However, there is no existing way in which this speed can be measured > >to more than a few digits of precision, so for practical purposes we > >have to use the "fixed" stars, even though we know they are not really > >fixed. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "a few digits of precision," but > practical Earth-rotation measurements are by VLBI with quasars as > reference sources. A single measurement is probably accurate to a > few milli-arcseconds. No matter how many times I see this I still find it incredible that a person can believe it and especially with the sprawling history of clocks and longitude supporting the facts of planetary dimensions all organised the Earth's rotational characteristics in terms of rotation once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour. I have to ask ,what is so difficult about the proper procedure which creates the average 24 hour day out of natural noon,allows these average days to elapse seamlessly from one cycle to the next and then transfered to daily rotation as a 'constant',not as an observation as natural noon cycles vary but simply as an extremely clever way to make use of the average 24 hour day ?. The only relevance of a star returning to a meridian is determining the annual cycle for that is where the value of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes comes in by way of the equable 365/366 day calendar system therefore what you see in terms of the 'sidereal time' value is not the rotation of the Earth but merely something based on the average 24 hour day within the equable 365/366 day system and God forbid people mistake this for constant daily rotation,which unfortunately they do. I had a brief glance at the IERS web sitehttp://www.iers.org/MainDisp.csl?pid=163-253 > but didn't see actual values. They're probably on the web site > somewhere. > > -- > Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. > Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...(a)cfa.harvard.edu > Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |