Is Pluto a planet?

gkell1 · 22-10-2011 02:53PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Copernicus assumed all the planets had a circular orbit. That assumption was why no one would ever accept what he did. When it cames to predicting a body's location Ptolemy's modified model was so useful; Copernicus' almost useless.

Useless indeed !,readers may wish to see how useless contemporaries are need only look at what they understand of the basic facts surrounding our own planet and if they are not astonished at the unfolding tragedy they should be.

Take a normal temperature forecast where the temperature goes up and down daily -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/31?

Now,not just an astronomer but any person should be able to extract the rotation of the Earth from that data so that the cause of daily temperature fluctuations matches the rotation of the Earth.Royal Society empiricists can't do that and it is easily demonstrated.

The intricate technical details can actually be set aside presently but is a problem of right ascension where empiricists look for their 'predictive' connection between astronomy and experimental sciences and boy,is it a doozy of a mistake.Again,the inability to connect daily temperature oscillations with the daily rotation of the Earth is as bad as it gets so that is where the 'predictive' agenda gets you.

Turtwig · 23-10-2011 11:56PM

gkell1 wrote: »

Take a normal temperature forecast where the temperature goes up and down daily -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/31?

Now,not just an astronomer but any person should be able to extract the rotation of the Earth from that data so that the cause of daily temperature fluctuations matches the rotation of the Earth.

Please explain exactly how one would do this.

gkell1 · 24-10-2011 05:05AM

Malty_T wrote: »

Please explain exactly how one would do this.

To be fair,not many readers are aware that a huge problem exists other than seeing a request such as yours,extracting the rotation of the Earth from daily temperature fluctuations and a day/night cycle is pretty much self evident and the 1461 rotations covering 4 years and 4 orbital circuits of the calendar system falls into place with little effort.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/1?

To believe the empirical stance of 1465 rotations in 1461 days is to suspend normal reasoning abilities as the imbalance will not tally with cause and effect seen in the temperature index above and so the curtain rises on a problem that I have faced for over a decade in that it displays all the unthinking and unfeeling symptoms of a cult -

"In all the world, there is nothing quite so impenetrable as a human mind snapped shut with bliss. No call to reason, no emotional appeal can get through its armor of self-proclaimed joy." Cult deprogramming website

The issue is not to convince you that you can extract the rotation of the Earth out of a basic temperature index but rather finding people who can and thereby reworking the principles behind planetary dynamics back into the stable facts of rotation once in 24 hours,365 1/4 rotations in proportion to 1 orbital circuit and 1461 rotations in 1461 days.The nature of the empirical cult is the lack of physical considerations and constraints which boils down to the unrestrained choices empiricists allow themselves as a means to an end without considering technical or historical details or misusing them.

The only other option is to block my posts which has happened more than once.

Turtwig · 24-10-2011 05:13AM

gkell1 wrote: »

To be fair,not many readers are aware that a huge problem exists other than a request such as yours,extracting the rotation of the Earth from daily temperature fluctuations and a day/night cycle is pretty much self evident and the 1461 rotations covering 4 years and 4 orbital circuits of the calendar system falls into place with little effort.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/1?

To believe the empirical stance of 1465 rotations in 1461 days is to suspend normal reasoning abilities as the imbalance will not tally with cause and effect seen in the temperature index above and so the curtain rises on a problem that I have faced for over a decade in that it displays all the unthinking and unfeeling symptoms of a cult -

"In all the world, there is nothing quite so impenetrable as a human mind snapped shut with bliss. No call to reason, no emotional appeal can get through its armor of self-proclaimed joy." Cult deprogramming website

The issue is not to convince you that you can extract the rotation of the Earth out of a basic temperature index but rather finding people who can and thereby reworking the principles behind planetary dynamics back into the stable facts of rotation once in 24 hours,365 1/4 rotations in proportion to 1 orbital circuit and 1461 rotations in 1461 days.The nature of the empirical cult is the lack of physical considerations and constraints which boils down to the unrestrained choices empiricists allow themselves as a means to an end without considering technical or historical details or misusing them.

The only other option is to block my posts which has happened more than once.

If people are ignorant on a topic then that ignorance should be turned into awareness. All I'm asking is that you explain how to show the earth is rotating via temperatures. It seems a novel idea and I'll admit that probably in my ignorance I just cannot possibly see how it is possible .

gkell1 · 24-10-2011 07:12PM

Malty_T wrote: »

If people are ignorant on a topic then that ignorance should be turned into awareness. All I'm asking is that you explain how to show the earth is rotating via temperatures. It seems a novel idea and I'll admit that probably in my ignorance I just cannot possibly see how it is possible .

Civil and all as your response is,I dare not dishonor my own national astronomical heritage by answering a question as to what causes daylight to turn to darkness in tandem with daily temperature fluctuations,it is too obvious and perhaps more so than determining why the Earth is round and not flat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/101?

I have dealt with the empirical cult for near a decade now,no appeal concerning what children are taught,national pride,self respect or any other human attribute or concern can snap readers out of this affliction where even the 1461 rotations and 1461 days of the calendar cycle presented as cause and effect survives as a fact by virtue of some reckless reasoning in the late 17th century.

Why should readers care ?,the antecedent to modeling with computers was modeling planetary motions using watches and timekeeping averages and no matter how plain and obvious it may be to readers that Feb 29th of a leap year closes out 1461 rotations which reduces to a proportion of 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit will they not budge from their stance that there are 366 1/4 rotations per circuit.Despite appearances,this has always existed as a problem in the scientific arena and was always countered with the utmost seriousness*

If you can't read the rotation of the Earth from day turning to night then you have a big problem but you are not alone in this respect.It sometimes happens that it does not enter people's heads why the Earth is round however they would probably feel aggrieved if someone insisted the Earth was flat,this issue is no different and the string of facts which are challenged are that the Earth turns once in 24 hours,365 1/4 times a year and Feb 29th closes out 1461 rotations in 4 orbital circuits.

* " I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill " Galileo

If you find yourself asking how you get rotation from daily temperature fluctuations you may assume that you do not conclude that there are 1461 rotations in 1461 days/4 years and can safely put your views in context of Galileo's commentary.

Rubecula · 24-10-2011 07:44PM

I am not a great intelligence, but I don't think I am all that stupid.

Your argument seems well formed Gkell, but somehow I don't understand a word of it.

We can tell the earth does 1461 revolutions in 1461 days because of it's temperature?

Or is it we can tell it's temperature because it does 1461 revolutions?

I am sorry but I simply can not see what you are saying. (No offence implied, I just want to know in laymans simple terms what it is you mean if that is possible.)

shizz · 24-10-2011 08:11PM

I think he's simply saying that at night it gets cold and in the day it gets warmer?

gkell1 · 24-10-2011 08:29PM

Rubecula wrote: »

I am not a great intelligence, but I don't think I am all that stupid.

Your argument seems well formed Gkell, but somehow I don't understand a word of it.

We can tell the earth does 1461 revolutions in 1461 days because of it's temperature?

What does the daily temperature rising and falling at any location on the planet tell you along with daylight turning to darkness in terms of cause ? -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/8?

Clocks or no clocks,they understood in antiquity that they could not mark the day with the longest period of darkness or the longest period of daylight by following a system of 365 day/night cycles nor 366 day/night cycles but somewhere in-between so the arrangement was 1461 days formatted as 365 days for 3 years with a 4th year of 366 days -

"..therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day as feast of Benevolent Gods [the pharaoh and family] be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year, whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in the order as regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which are contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits, are now corrected and improved" Canopus decree

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/canopus_decree.htm

If you find yourself in a position challenging the daily rotational cause of daylight turns to darkness 1461 times as days and dates within the calendar system which represents 4 orbital cycles of the Earth then you may assume a huge problem exists somewhere.The dominant view is 1465 rotations for 4 years and that is not just wrong,that is a tragedy that is difficult to convey other than as an analogy of people suddenly reverting to a flat Earth ideology for no good reason.

In the scheme of things people do not give planetary facts much notice but I am certain they would not go out of their way to appear so indifferent as to ignore basic planetary facts such as what causes the day/night cycle in tandem with daily temperature fluctuations.Judging by the recent posts in the 'weather' forum that just happened and that may be the most dismal fact of all.

gkell1 · 24-10-2011 08:53PM

shizz wrote: »

I think he's simply saying that at night it gets cold and in the day it gets warmer?

If you count the days from March 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012 you will have a sequence like this over 4 years - 365 +365+365+366 = 1461 days

You have a student who wishes to know why the temperature goes up during the day and falls during the night or even why day turns to night over those 4 years.

You have the dominant but utterly mindnumbing view that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days so now you have to explain to the student why the rotation of the Earth does not cause daylight to turn to darkness nor cause temperatures to go up and down daily.

If you wish to drive yourself insane then be my guest,it is much easier to just assume that one 24 hour rotation of the Earth is responsible for a wake/sleep cycle,that you will most probably be warmer at noon than at 3 AM and all those other experiences we derive from the rotation of the Earth,it is also so much more common sense to accept 1461 rotations in 1461 days/4 years.

Cú Giobach · 25-10-2011 01:44AM

gkell1 wrote: »

If you count the days from March 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012 you will have a sequence like this over 4 years - 365 +365+365+366 = 1461 days

You have a student who wishes to know why the temperature goes up during the day and falls during the night or even why day turns to night over those 4 years.

You have the dominant but utterly mindnumbing view that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days so now you have to explain to the student why the rotation of the Earth does not cause daylight to turn to darkness nor cause temperatures to go up and down daily.

For the Earth to complete one full day/night cycle it has to turn not 360 degrees but (approx) 361 degrees, due to its movement and thus change in position while orbiting around the Sun, for every 1 degree of arc the Earth travels in its orbit it has to rotate an extra 1 deg for the Sun to return to the same apparent position in the sky.
Over the course of a year this means the Earth rotates 366 1/4 times but experiences 365 1/4 day/night cycles. Hence 1465 rotations in 4 years and 1461 day/night cycles. What we conveniently call a "day" is in fact a 361 deg rotation of the Earth.
If the Earth didn't orbit and remained in the same place relative to the Sun the number of rotations would equal the number of day/night cycles.

gkell1 · 25-10-2011 06:53PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

For the Earth to complete one full day/night cycle it has to turn not 360 degrees but (approx) 361 degrees, due to its movement and thus change in position while orbiting around the Sun, for every 1 degree of arc the Earth travels in its orbit it has to rotate an extra 1 deg for the Sun to return to the same apparent position in the sky.
Over the course of a year this means the Earth rotates 366 1/4 times but experiences 365 1/4 day/night cycles. Hence 1465 rotations in 4 years and 1461 day/night cycles. What we conveniently call a "day" is in fact a 361 deg rotation of the Earth.
If the Earth didn't orbit and remained in the same place relative to the Sun the number of rotations would equal the number of day/night cycles.

The watch everyone here wears or the clock they see on the wall is more or less the same as when John Harrison invented the first truly accurate ones to solve location East and West on the planet or the 'Longitude Problem' as it was known.The Earth turns 15 degrees per hour and each 15 degrees at the Equator is 1037.5 miles so that in 24 hours it turns through a full circumference of 24901 miles hence 15 degrees/1 hour of rotation can be used to determine the difference from place to place and from day to day.Don't take my word for it but Harrison's -

"The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the
following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360 equal
parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called
Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own
axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of
those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the
Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of
those degrees)and it must follow, that from the time any one of
those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four
minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so
that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon
with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four
minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less
quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are,
can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if
visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high
until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is
only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when
such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment
what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is
clearly discovered." John Harrison

http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q&f=false

What went wrong is complicated and requires a serious type of reader who is not easily put off from looking at the historical and technical details and especially the emergence of the problematic equatorial coordinate system in the late 17th century just as telescopes and clocks arrived on the scene together.To give a reader a rough idea of what went wrong,it is the 'predictive' convenience of right ascension which allows people to determine an astronomical event such as a lunar or solar eclipse as a day and date within the calendar system so that this system does not mesh with the raw proportion of rotations per orbital circuit but uses the calendar format of 365/366 days.Again,it is complicated but can be worked out in better detail in time once certain facts are established.

Turtwig · 25-10-2011 08:06PM

I'm still lost.

Are you still not assuming already that the earth goes around the sun?

gkell1 · 25-10-2011 09:01PM

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm still lost.
Are you still not assuming already that the earth goes around the sun?

This looks like an intellectual form of autism to me,the huge swathe of history and technical details which link clocks to daily rotation is hardly required to affirm that one 24 hour rotation of the Earth equates to 1 day/night cycle with the follow-on fact that 1461 days/4 years equates to 1461 rotations/4 orbital circuits.It is as though people cannot snap out of reasoning which imposes a mindnumbing 1465 rotations in 1461 days through no fault of their own yet be that as it may,the dominant view is at a level where none of the basic astronomical facts survive in sequence - the Earth turns once in 24 hours,a proportion of 365 1/4 rotations for 1 orbital circuit and 1461 rotations in 1461 days.People who gain a foothold with those string of facts can work through the details,discover why these facts are the only ones acceptable and although complicated,why a group of people in late 17th century England got it catastrophically wrong and why our generation is paying for that very expensive error.

I am not,I repeat,not asking anyone to link the utterly stupid empirical ideology of 1465 rotations in 1461 days with cause and effect ( such the number of rotations allied to the day/night cycles) as it cannot be done,it only exposes that there is an enormous problem that becomes more obvious with time and especially as this issue is at the core of the 'scientific method',a toxic strain of empiricism that began with Newton at the expense of astronomy ,its methods and insights.

No parent would suffer their children to come under the influence of a teacher who taught that the Earth was flat yet the inability to equate days with rotations within the confines of the calendar cycle is on par with this and it is that appalling and fortunately that obvious.

Turtwig · 25-10-2011 09:41PM

gkell1 wrote: »

This looks like an intellectual form of autism to me,the huge swathe of history and technical details which link clocks to daily rotation is hardly required to affirm that one 24 hour rotation of the Earth equates to 1 day/night cycle with the follow-on fact that 1461 days/4 years equates to 1461 rotations/4 orbital circuits.It is as though people cannot snap out of reasoning which imposes a mindnumbing 1465 rotations in 1461 days through no fault of their own yet be that as it may,the dominant view is at a level where none of the basic astronomical facts survive in sequence - the Earth turns once in 24 hours,a proportion of 365 1/4 rotations for 1 orbital circuit and 1461 rotations in 1461 days.People who gain a foothold with those string of facts can work through the details,discover why these facts are the only ones acceptable and although complicated,why a group of people in late 17th century England got it catastrophically wrong and why our generation is paying for that very expensive error.

I am not,I repeat,not asking anyone to link the utterly stupid empirical ideology of 1465 rotations in 1461 days with cause and effect ( such the number of rotations allied to the day/night cycles) as it cannot be done,it only exposes that there is an enormous problem that becomes more obvious with time and especially as this issue is at the core of the 'scientific method',a toxic strain of empiricism that began with Newton at the expense of astronomy ,its methods and insights.

No parent would suffer their children to come under the influence of a teacher who taught that the Earth was flat yet the inability to equate days with rotations within the confines of the calendar cycle is on par with this and it is that appalling and fortunately that obvious.

I'm sorry, I really am, but I do not follow your explanation one bit. So perhaps I'll reword my query a bit.

At first I thought you're idea was really novel and it naturally lead me to question how the earth's rotation could be proven via temperature fluctuations. The obvious problem being that everyone thought all the objects in the heaven went around the earth. Now all things being equal I'm confused as to how the heck knowing that night changes to day on a specific cycles leads one to conclude the earth must go around the sun. How does your explanation rule out the hypothesis that the sun is moving around the earth to coincide with such periods?

WalterMitty · 25-10-2011 09:46PM

gkell1 wrote: »

This looks like an intellectual form of autism to me,the huge swathe of history and technical details which link clocks to daily rotation is hardly required to affirm that one 24 hour rotation of the Earth equates to 1 day/night cycle with the follow-on fact that 1461 days/4 years equates to 1461 rotations/4 orbital circuits.It is as though people cannot snap out of reasoning which imposes a mindnumbing 1465 rotations in 1461 days through no fault of their own yet be that as it may,the dominant view is at a level where none of the basic astronomical facts survive in sequence - the Earth turns once in 24 hours,a proportion of 365 1/4 rotations for 1 orbital circuit and 1461 rotations in 1461 days.People who gain a foothold with those string of facts can work through the details,discover why these facts are the only ones acceptable and although complicated,why a group of people in late 17th century England got it catastrophically wrong and why our generation is paying for that very expensive error.

I am not,I repeat,not asking anyone to link the utterly stupid empirical ideology of 1465 rotations in 1461 days with cause and effect ( such the number of rotations allied to the day/night cycles) as it cannot be done,it only exposes that there is an enormous problem that becomes more obvious with time and especially as this issue is at the core of the 'scientific method',a toxic strain of empiricism that began with Newton at the expense of astronomy ,its methods and insights.

No parent would suffer their children to come under the influence of a teacher who taught that the Earth was flat yet the inability to equate days with rotations within the confines of the calendar cycle is on par with this and it is that appalling and fortunately that obvious.

Temperature varys due to numerous reasons. It wasnt so obvious the the cycles observed hundreds or thousands of years ago were due to a spherical earth rotating and orbiting elliptically around the sun. Why would it? What is your alternative to the "scientific method"? The scientific method that allowed us to drag ourselves off of this planet.

Cú Giobach · 25-10-2011 11:30PM

gkell1 wrote: »

The watch everyone here wears or the clock they see on the wall is more or less the same as when John Harrison invented the first truly accurate ones to solve location East and West on the planet or the 'Longitude Problem' as it was known.The Earth turns 15 degrees per hour and each 15 degrees at the Equator is 1037.5 miles so that in 24 hours it turns through a full circumference of 24901 miles hence 15 degrees/1 hour of rotation can be used to determine the difference from place to place and from day to day.

In 24 hours the Earth turns through 361°. It takes 23hrs 56min 4.1 sec to rotate 360°
This can be measured using an object that by virtue of its distance is practically immobile eg: a fixed star. Why not try measuring it yourself, it is quite easy to do.
This is why any particular star will rise 4 minutes earlier each night (something very easy to verify), and adds up to 366 1/4 rotations per year and 1465 rotations in 4 years, how can you possibly have issues with such easily verifiable facts?

If you went sailing off round the world with one of Harrison's watches and a sextant, without taking this into account, you would get lost pretty quickly.

slade_x · 26-10-2011 04:21AM

gkell1 wrote: »

This looks like an intellectual form of autism to me,the huge swathe of history and technical details which link clocks to daily rotation

And how exactly does counting the iterations of the motions on a clock face account for the earth revolving around the sun once per year. Yes you can count a full orbital trip but not accounting for the revolution. Sure you can divide up 24 hours on a clock face in 2 iterations of 12, the account of an orbital period is not represented on a clock face obviously and bear with me, (just like a complete revolution of the earth isnt either) but on our calenders as iterating one 730 counts of 2 iterations of 12 for every orbital period. This 1 year count (365/ 730 counts of 12 hours) is not just indicative of the earth making a trip around the sun but as it makes that trip its completing 1 revolution of it, which is not recorded for a very important reason as the earth is in motion around the sun to complete a cycle

The reason there are 366 1/4 revolutions of earth in one year is because the earth is in fact revolving on its own axis in approximately 23 hours and 56 minutes which is verifiable by the fixed stars. the reason there are not 366 days in a year is because a day is perceived lost as the earth completes 1 full revolution around our sun which is approximately 1 degree per day because of its travel. You need to account for the travel as the earths revolution around the sun itself removes an apparent sunrise and sunset in our skies for an orbital period of 1 year.

The time it takes the earth to revolve once on its axis is not the same as the time it takes for the sun to be fixed in the same position (high noon) after a revolution because of the earths travel around it.

gbee wrote: »

I lifted a flower plant and saw a lump of ice left over from 2009, I kicked it into the drain.

?

gkell1 · 26-10-2011 05:23AM

WalterMitty wrote: »

Temperature varys due to numerous reasons. It wasnt so obvious the the cycles observed hundreds or thousands of years ago were due to a spherical earth rotating and orbiting elliptically around the sun. Why would it? What is your alternative to the "scientific method"? The scientific method that allowed us to drag ourselves off of this planet.

The language of astronomy is geometry,it is largely an interpretative science with a heavy reliance on physical considerations and especially linking cause and effect between planetary dynamics and experiences at a terrestrial and human level.If you want to use the 'predictive method' at an engineering level to give yourself some sort of say into astronomy you may as well take credit for why many people in Ireland worry about what is in their fridge this morning or why their kids are half way around the world -

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all

You want to be a slave to the late 17th century powdered wigs then that is your own business as they were the ones responsible for introducing right ascension as a means to explain daily and orbital motions which creates an imbalance between the rotations and days over a year.

There is a flat Earth ideology and then there is this,if any person finds it novel that the Earth rotates once in a day and that the effect is temperature rises and falls along with daylight turning to darkness then they had better take a long look in the mirror

seanybiker · 26-10-2011 05:40AM

6 pages? Seriously?.
No its not a planet

Cú Giobach · 26-10-2011 08:54AM

gkell1 wrote: »

You want to be a slave to the late 17th century powdered wigs then that is your own business as they were the ones responsible for introducing right ascension as a means to explain daily and orbital motions which creates an imbalance between the rotations and days over a year.

The imbalance between day/night cycles and rotations is the result of a spinning Earth orbiting the Sun, and is not a human construct.

John mac · 26-10-2011 09:42AM

Yea, but Pluto still isn't a planet.

I blame the existence of the Higgs boson causing the shift in time space

gkell1 · 26-10-2011 04:59PM

slade_x wrote: »

The reason there are 366 1/4 revolutions of earth in one year is because the earth is in fact revolving on its own axis in approximately 23 hours and 56 minutes which is verifiable by the fixed stars. the reason there are not 366 days in a year is because a day is perceived lost as the earth completes 1 full revolution around our sun which is approximately 1 degree per day because of its travel. You need to account for the travel as the earths revolution around the sun itself removes an apparent sunrise and sunset in our skies for an orbital period of 1 year.

All locations on Earth experience a single daylight/darkness cycle that originates in the orbital motion of the Earth and this day/night cycle which reflects one full rotation to the Sun is experienced at the North/South poles in isolation.

It can actually be seen directly by interpreting the South to North daily rotation of Uranus to the central Sun and the separate East to West orbital characteristic where the planet turns about a 'traveling axis' that stretches through the center of the planet from equator to Equator -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg

The Earth's polar coordinates turn in a 10366 mile circle to the central Sun with a traveling axis on a line drawn through the center of the Earth from Arctic to Antarctic circles.At the equinox the polar coordinates turn through the circle of illumination hence the old 'tilt' towards and away from the Sun explanation is gone and replaced by introducing an additional orbital feature.

If you want to believe the Earth turns 1465 times in 1461 days then be my guest,it spares me having to remind you that it lacks any reference to the orbital motion of the Earth and to the central Sun.

FreudianSlippers · 26-10-2011 05:23PM

gkell1 wrote: »

All locations on Earth experience a single daylight/darkness cycle that originates in the orbital motion of the Earth and this day/night cycle which reflects one full rotation to the Sun is experienced at the North/South poles in isolation.

It can actually be seen directly by interpreting the South to North daily rotation of Uranus to the central Sun and the separate East to West orbital characteristic where the planet turns about a 'traveling axis' that stretches through the center of the planet from equator to Equator -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg

The Earth's polar coordinates turn in a 10366 mile circle to the central Sun with a traveling axis on a line drawn through the center of the Earth from Arctic to Antarctic circles.At the equinox the polar coordinates turn through the circle of illumination hence the old 'tilt' towards and away from the Sun explanation is gone and replaced by introducing an additional orbital feature.

If you want to believe the Earth turns 1465 times in 1461 days then be my guest,it spares me having to remind you that it lacks any reference to the orbital motion of the Earth and to the central Sun.

Maybe I'm thick, but what does this have to do with Pluto?

gkell1 · 26-10-2011 05:31PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Maybe I'm thick, but what does this have to do with Pluto?

Thick indeed !,planets are defined by virtue of their motion,particularly apparent retrograde motion -

"Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. " Copernicus

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Of course,as followers of Royal Society empiricism you can't work out that apparent retrogrades are an illusion seen from the orbital moving Earth hence empiricists never understood why planets are planets in the first place.Like everything astronomical touched by the powdered wigs of late 17th century England,they wrecked the main Western astronomical argument for the orbital motion of the Earth -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct" Newton

Thick !,you have no idea how dumb that is.

shizz · 26-10-2011 06:21PM

gkell1 wrote: »

Thick indeed !...

...Thick !,you have no idea how dumb that is.

I think you are being a bit harsh after all the rambling you've been doing.

I know in respect to what planet stands for, Pluto should be regarded as one, but these days with all of the knowledge we have obtained over the years the name "planet" has stuck to name them but its description or definition of what classifies as a planet is not simply its "retrograde" motion any more.

Are you simply arguing that Pluto should still be regarded as a Planet because of the definition of the name? Or has your point changed over the last couple of pages?

gbee · 26-10-2011 06:46PM

slade_x wrote: »

?

I know, thought I was making a joke.

gkell1 · 26-10-2011 06:49PM

shizz wrote: »

I think you are being a bit harsh after all the rambling you've been doing.

I know in respect to what planet stands for, Pluto should be regarded as one, but these days with all of the knowledge we have obtained over the years the name "planet" has stuck to name them but its description or definition of what classifies as a planet is not simply its "retrograde" motion any more.

Are you simply arguing that Pluto should still be regarded as a Planet because of the definition of the name? Or has your point changed over the last couple of pages?

I discovered early on that empiricists never understood their own system and especially the 'definitions' Newton built around his conception of absolute/relative time.space and motion,they only cared that he seemed to have found a way to dump experimental sciences directly into the field of astronomy or the 'scientific method' as it became known.The wider world hears that Newton discovered gravity but what Newton actually did is astonishingly crude yet contemporary imaging tends to expose and obliterate most of the distortions and manipulations he introduced with the most difficult issue finding individuals who wish to get to the bottom of things.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

An analogy of a car in an inner circle moving around a traffic island overtaking cars moving slower in an outer lane can be easily compared with the motion of the Earth and observed motions of Jupiter and Saturn in retrograde as we move around the central Sun together hence the illusion of 'wanderers' which invariably is tied to what a planet is.No offence to Isaac and his Irish followers,there is no hypothetical observer on the Sun required,just good judgement over an extended period of time -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct" Newton

Nice to see you are so ashamed of it that you won't comment,it is wrong,it is dumb and a complete mockery of what the wandering motion that is intrinsic to the definition of a planet represents.Want to hear it from Galileo,didn't think so but here it is anyway -

"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . ." 1632, Dialogue Concerning
the Two Chief World Systems

The most intense satisfaction of all after the smoke has cleared is not trying to convince people they are wrong,it is adapting and adjusting solutions to suit contemporary imaging power for constant attack or defense of somebody else's mistake is a waste of energy, much better to just get on with things and actually gain a reputation for doing something worthwhile,at least among those who have an interest in astronomy.

shizz · 26-10-2011 07:21PM

gkell1 wrote: »

Nice to see you are so ashamed of it that you won't comment,it is wrong,it is dumb and a complete mockery of what the wandering motion that is intrinsic to the definition of a planet represents.Want to hear it from Galileo,didn't think so but here it is anyway -

I don't understand what your problem is with the meaning of the name Planets? They appeared to wander around the night sky compared to the more stationary stars. I'm sure it was a huge wonder to the people that first discovered it but I'm certain everyone here understands why they appear to wander and no one thinks their actual movement out in space resembles that.

gkell1 · 26-10-2011 07:50PM

shizz wrote: »

I don't understand what your problem is with the meaning of the name Planets? They appeared to wander around the night sky compared to the more stationary stars.

Too many thick people here to explain the intricate and enjoyable reasoning where the Earth's orbital motion between Venus and Mars replaced the Sun's position as the geocentric astronomers once thought.

Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler
Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun which
is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their whole
system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe wishes,but
in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one place,while the
centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.
Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but the
circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun."
Johannes Kepler

The wandering motions of planets are tied to the observations of a moving Earth,the Sun had no observed retrograde motion so the arrangement and arguments for the motions of the Earth are so subtle and intricate yet few people today have handled the arguments with care in order to dump a 'definition' of a planet that is not needed and never would be for a genuine astronomer.

shizz wrote: »

I'm sure it was a huge wonder to the people that first discovered it but I'm certain everyone here understands why they appear to wander and no one thinks their actual movement out in space resembles that.

There is nothing worse than an Irish follower of Newton's toxic strain of empiricism,it gives him choices where he had none and all that is required is to match his statement with the time lapse footage and know it doesn't work,is stupid and an insult to Western astronomical tradition,any other judgement would be unfair to the astronomers who did achieve great things such as Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.

Turtwig · 26-10-2011 07:54PM

I am still utterly lost. In fact, I am so lost as I still don't get what temperature has to do with anything but maybe that's just me. One thing I would like to point out though is this whole leap year stuff has thus far failed to include the fact that every 400 years is NOT a leap year in order to make further considerations due to the complexity of a day, year and heck second on Earth. The other thing I would like to ask is what does a person mean when they claim Astronomy is geometry?

gkell1 wrote: »

Too many thick people here to explain the intricate and enjoyable reasoning where the Earth's orbital motion between Venus and Mars replaced the Sun's position as the geocentric astronomers once thought.

I might be thick, but I sincerely doubt that some of the regulars who post here are.

Is Pluto a planet?

Comments