Time : Expansion of The Universe

gkell2 · 29-03-2012 05:59PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This is so ironic coming from you it makes the mind boggle, you pontificate on the movements of the heavens and tell people they should go out look up and come to their own conclusions, yet you are are unaware of probably the very first thing that becomes obvious as soon as you start looking at the night sky, namely that the movement of the stars and the sun differ by a few minutes each day.

No pontification at all,I need the attachment to the celestial arena just as everyone else does and some people I know get down when they can't see the moon,Sun and other stars due to gloomy weather without fully realizing it.You can meet people out walking who know quite a bit about local geology and history, birdwatchers who can give a detailed account of migrations and astronomy is a talent like that,not just a magnification exercise at night but a detailed account of some of the oldest and most enjoyable achievements of humanity.It is not a means to an end and never really was,when I present the texts of Kepler and Galileo in tandem with contemporary imaging,it really is to draw attention to what they are saying and not throwing good information after bad.

So what if the majority run after 'big bang' and the impossible concept that it is,a person who strains to make sense of something they shouldn't is hardly going to have time to spend on interpreting the changes in position of stars and planets over periods of time.If you want to comprehend why we have an additional day on Feb 29th,you are obligated to acknowledge the Egyptian Decans which use the star Sirius as a starting point for the annual cycle and in modern terms that reflects the use of the orbital motion of the Earth to bring Sirius from behind the glare of the Sun after 1461 days instead of 4 years of 365 days (1460 days).

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Because of your lack of knowledge of this most obvious of situations, I have no doubt whatsoever you do not actually watch the night sky and all you know about it is gleaned from reading the works of the greats of old.
And quite unlike these people you constantly quote, none of your ideas are based on either observation or the taking into account of new discoveries.
The very people you worship would dismiss and reject your ideas as the nonsensical ramblings of someone who has no interest in or knowledge of the scientific method of discovery, there is no doubt whatsoever that if Kepler, Copernicus or Newton were alive and reading this thread today, they would scoff at your ideas along with the rest of us.

In 2005 when I did propose that plate tectonics and planetary shape were linked by a common and observed mechanism seen in all rotating objects with exposed viscous compositions,in this case differential rotation,the dominant and unquestioned view was for 'convection cells'.Today when you read about the emerging mechanism of rotational dynamics of the Earth,you are encountering my work and I assure you that is annoying to say the least to see it manhandled without proper attribution.It doesn't matter anyway,to consider an uneven rotational gradient means that they have to recognize the spherical deviation of the planet and a maximum equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour and rotation of its full 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours.Lots of other work and especially the much more complicated issue of adjusting the explanation for the seasons and variations in the natural noon cycle.

Copernicus never feared Church censure,in his dedication of his work to the Pope,he feared that people who are followers couldn't follow his arguments and considering that nobody here has denounced Newton's false view of retrogrades,Copernicus had every reason to -

"Therefore I debated with myself for a long time whether to publish
the volume which I wrote to prove the earth's motion or rather to
follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to
transmit philosophy's secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in
writing but by word of mouth, as is shown by Lysis' letter to
Hipparchus. And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose,
because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which
would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very
magnificent thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be
ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in
any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated
to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and
example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the
same part among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed
these considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account
of the novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me
to abandon completely the work which I had undertaken." Copernicus

I absolutely do mind that our nation has a remarkable astronomical heritage inherited from antiquity,places like Knowth and Newgrange,but with inhabitants today arguing against one 24 hour day/one rotation let alone acceding to the absurdity of 'big bang',I do not see so much respect for any tradition,astronomical,civil,religious or bottom line

Amtmann · 29-03-2012 07:02PM

It's ironic that gkell thinks the Big Bang is fanciful yet believes in the christian sky fairy.

Anonymo · 29-03-2012 07:09PM

Amtmann wrote: »

It's ironic that gkell thinks the Big Bang is fanciful yet believes in the christian sky fairy.

Ah now Amtmann, I'd agree with most of what you were saying earlier but there is no need for this. Belief in God should not impact whether or not you trust empirical data. There are many people who believe in God who do great science. Their motivation may come from a different place but that's fine. The big bang should not be seen as pro-religion or otherwise. It is a paradigm that is supported strongly by the data. I understand your post is to criticise gkell2 but I think there are many other ways to do that.

Amtmann · 29-03-2012 07:22PM

Anonymo wrote: »

Ah now Amtmann, I'd agree with most of what you were saying earlier but there is no need for this. Belief in God should not impact whether or not you trust empirical data. There are many people who believe in God who do great science. Their motivation may come from a different place but that's fine. The big bang should not be seen as pro-religion or otherwise. It is a paradigm that is supported strongly by the data. I understand your post is to criticise gkell2 but I think there are many other ways to do that.

My point is really that gkell seems not to accept the Big Bang theory despite the overwhelming evidence. Yet he believes in god despite there being no evidence. I'm not sure how you can reason with such a person.

Anonymo · 29-03-2012 07:27PM

Amtmann wrote: »

My point is really that gkell seems not to accept the Big Bang theory despite the overwhelming evidence. Yet he believes in god despite there being no evidence. I'm not sure how you can reason with such a person.

Yeah ok but I think drawing religion into the debate is only valid if someone has refused to accept empirical data for religious reasons. Anyone who does that is absolutely wrong but criticising such actions is not the same as criticising someone for their belief. I do understand where you are coming from so I don't want to come across as self-righteous. I'm sure, given your other posts, that it is not your intention to suggest anyone who believes in God is irrational. That Dawkins type approach is far too harsh and doesn't do anyone any favours. Again I'm not trying to demonise you. Opposite in fact. All I want to do is give you the opportunity to clarify your comment which you've now done.

gkell2 · 29-03-2012 09:56PM

Anonymo wrote: »

Yeah ok but I think drawing religion into the debate is only valid if someone has refused to accept empirical data for religious reasons.

Naughty ,naughty,'big bang' is so utterly devoid of internal logic that it is not rejected on any grounds,it is more of a condition than a theory for seemingly you can hold contradictory assertions that the oldest galaxies are the most distant and simultaneously that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant.As the wider population is presented with the former assertion,internal logical consistency holds that the nearest galaxies are the youngest hence 'big bang' is not held up as either right or wrong but simply that.

Each individual comes to their own level of understanding of God or what some people know as the Infinite,some like yourselves can conceive limits to time and space that genuine Christians consider Infinite,Eternal and limitless and the mind that is free of conceiving limits where there are none turns to ideas of finding the Infinite in finite things,the Eternal in the temporal events hence the disappointment with denominational Christianity in its inaction on 'big bang' as it dominates in the wider world.

What people think is science,at least in astronomical topics,is really a vicious strain of Royal Society empiricism and to think that Christianity is seen in competition with empiricism reflects badly on the Church more than on the people who follow the predictive/modeling agendas of this toxic strain of empiricism.

Zubeneschamali · 30-03-2012 08:10AM

Dragging this back towards the Topic, the Vatican runs a rather good Observatory.

Wh1stler · 30-03-2012 04:10PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

No, Uranus's axis of rotation is tilted at 98 degs (the planet is rotating on its side) and this axis points in the same direction irrespective of where in its orbit the planet is.
At one point in its year the north pole is pointed directly at the Sun, and half a year later on the other side of the orbit, the south pole is pointed directly at it.

This is all very confusing.

The north pole of Uranus experiences a sunrise and a sunset on each orbit of the sun but does not rotate and the moon experiences a sunrise and a sunset on each orbit of the earth and does rotate?

If the moon is losing axial rotation energy, can we expect it to start appearing to rotate the 'wrong' way as it loses energy from its one rotation per month?

Or, to put it another way, if the moon has lost all of its rotational energy through tidal forces, then how can it be said to be rotating now?

Also, if earth became tidally locked with the sun, stopped rotating relative to the sun, then there would exist the same situation as that of the moon; one apparent rotation per orbit.

Well, this one rotation per orbit would be present no matter how many times per year that the earth rotated and would be 'superimposed' onto the motion caused by the actual rotation of the earth. So, the earth turns 365.25 times per year plus one apparent rotation due to earth's orbit around the sun.

This gives: one year equals 366.25 days or 1465 days per four orbits of the sun. But four of those days are entirely due to the motion of the earth around the sun and are not related to the rotational energy of the earth itself. But we would observe only 1461 sunrises and sunsets in that same preiod.

If tidal locking is due to 'draining' of rotational energy then why does the 'draining' stop when there is still rotational energy present in the system?

Am I right to be confused?

Zubeneschamali · 30-03-2012 04:31PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

If tidal locking is due to 'draining' of rotational energy then why does the 'draining' stop when there is still rotational energy present in the system?

Because when a body is perfectly tidally locked, the tides no longer move. The body is distorted into an elliptical shape, but since the "humps" are no longer moving, they no longer dissipate energy.

The moon, however, cannot be perfectly tidally locked, as it's orbit is not perfectly circular. Tides on the moon due to the Earth still move, not all the way around like lunar tides on Earth, they "rock" back and forth every month. Hence the moon is still moving away from the Earth.

gkell2 · 30-03-2012 05:17PM

Amtmann wrote: »

It's ironic that gkell thinks the Big Bang is fanciful yet believes in the christian sky fairy.

Today a Royal Society empiricist can sneer at the Catholic Church and they have a right to even if the empiricists themselves follow a contradictory ideology with no internal logic -

"I was glad then that he [The Pope] did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference—the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary ('big bang), which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation." Hawkings

It is like somebody boasting that they disguised a flat Earth ideology in language so elaborate that a normal listener or reader can't understand it so who is worse,the person proposing it or the personal failing to comprehend what the proposal actually means.If big bangers like Hawkings insist that the oldest galaxies are the most distant then they must adhere to the internal logic of that proposal.

In a lot of respects,the present Church and empiricism are on both sides of the same coin in not being clear on the difference between interpretative astronomy with its own rules and insights as opposed to mechanical astronomy and what is now the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec,Far removed from the vacuous cartoon history of the religion vs science or the Church vs science are the details which nobody has resolved,and judging from the type of responses I have seen,is unlikely to be resolved in the near future -

http://www.unav.es/cryf/newlightistanbul.html

Kepler's segregation looks disparaging but he had good reason to separate interpretative/contemplative astronomy from geometric modelers given the damage they have caused since the late 17th century without having to consider physical considerations which restrain astronomers from issuing reckless and poorly thought out conclusions -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets
and the record of their motions is especially the task of the
practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to discover
their true and genuine path is . . .the task of interpretative
astronomy; while to say by what circle and lines correct images
of those true motions may be depicted on paper is the concern
of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

The single greatest undertaking in science in tandem with Christianity is the inclusion of empiricism as a discipline within astronomy rather than its driver,not the toxic strain of empiricism inherited through Newton's overreaching agenda but the original empiricism which was fine for its time.

gkell2 · 30-03-2012 05:38PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

Am I right to be confused?

You are not confused,it is simply a phenomenon that you are experiencing insofar as if Isaac Newton dictates to his followers that the moon rotates then it must rotate despite nobody ever seeing a rotating moon nor is it mentioned by any astronomical authority from antiquity until Isaac decided that the moon rotates along with Venus rotating once in 23 hours !!! -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-Hqdx_LUC&pg=PA579&dq=newton+moon+rotates&hl=en&ei=SQJ5TJP1FYTKswadoL2yDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

If the moon rotated once per orbital circuit you would see all points of the lunar surface once during that orbit of the Earth,if it rotated twice per orbital circuit you would see all points twice during the circuit and so on.

As for your other argument,it was tried by an exasperated person a century and a half ago,despite it sheer mindnumbing foolishness,it still survives today even when an astronaut can look out at a rotating Earth from a non rotating moon -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=MfU3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA27&dq=moon+does+not+rotate&hl=en&ei=Ywt5TPu7DJDGswbJ58SyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

The spinning moon indeed !,they would have a greater chance of seeing Venus rotate once in 23 hours than a spinning moon but this is what happens when theorists run amok with astronomy.

In any case,people seem happy with their conclusions and what effectively is like a comic book perspective of the historical and technical details of astronomy.

AugustusMinimus · 30-03-2012 05:51PM

gkell2 wrote: »

If the moon rotated once per orbital circuit you would see all points of the lunar surface once during that orbit of the Earth,if it rotated twice per orbital circuit you would see all points twice during the circuit and so on.

Absolute horse ****.

If the moon rotated once per orbit, every spot on the moon would either not be visible at all or would be visible twice dependent on the direction of rotation of the moon.

As is stand, the moon rotates in the direction which means the vast majority of it never becomes visible.

You're doing nothing but embarrassing yourself. This is something a lot of 10 year olds could grasp but you seemingly cannot.

gkell2 · 30-03-2012 06:50PM

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Absolute horse ****.

If the moon rotated once per orbit, every spot on the moon would either not be visible at all or would be visible twice dependent on the direction of rotation of the moon.

As is stand, the moon rotates in the direction which means the vast majority of it never becomes visible.

You're doing nothing but embarrassing yourself. This is something a lot of 10 year olds could grasp but you seemingly cannot.

Maybe you can get a lot of 10 years olds to believe you but a normal reasoning adult wouldn't and especially in this day and age.As men have landed on the moon,an astronaut can look out at a rotating Earth from a non rotating moon,if he chooses not to look at the Earth any longer he hops into his lunar buggy and drives to the far side of the moon and why? - because the moon doesn't spin.I would say a 10 year old would probably interpret the rotation of the Earth once in a day where all locations can be seen (I can't believe I have to explain this !) from any point in space where the Earth is in view except for a non rotating moon and the side that always faces away from us -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxrIMHKobk0

Look,if you want a spinning moon and Venus turning in 23 hours because Isaac says so then fine,when he got to retrogrades and Kepler's work he did more of the same .It doesn't even take an astronomer to figure out the moon doesn't spin so if readers can bear to believe in such a thing,it is no surprise why 'big bang' is so dominant.

Wh1stler · 30-03-2012 06:54PM

gkell2 wrote: »

If the moon rotated once per orbital circuit you would see all points of the lunar surface once during that orbit of the Earth,if it rotated twice per orbital circuit you would see all points twice during the circuit and so on.

But it seems that what is actually being said is that the moon would have to rotate twice each month in order for us to observe the whole of the moon just once every month.

By that same reasoning, the earth would have to rotate twice each year for us to experience one sunrise each year so therefore the earth must rotate 366 times per year in order that we can observe 365 sunrises each year and 367 times, for a leap year, in order to observe 366 sunrises.

i.e., if earth was tidally locked to the sun, we would see no sunrise despite the earth rotating once per year.

Cú Giobach · 30-03-2012 06:57PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

This is all very confusing.

The north pole of Uranus experiences a sunrise and a sunset on each orbit of the sun but does not rotate and the moon experiences a sunrise and a sunset on each orbit of the earth and does rotate?

1. The moon is orbiting the Earth and Uranus is orbiting the Sun.
2. The Moon is tidally locked and Uranus isn't.

If the moon is losing axial rotation energy, can we expect it to start appearing to rotate the 'wrong' way as it loses energy from its one rotation per month?

It would need an input of energy to "break" the tidal lock to stop rotating altogether, and consequently from the Earth appear to be turning the other way.

Or, to put it another way, if the moon has lost all of its rotational energy through tidal forces, then how can it be said to be rotating now?

It's rotating because it hasn't lost all its rotational energy.

Also, if earth became tidally locked with the sun, stopped rotating relative to the sun, then there would exist the same situation as that of the moon; one apparent rotation per orbit.

One actual rotation.

Well, this one rotation per orbit would be present no matter how many times per year that the earth rotated and would be 'superimposed' onto the motion caused by the actual rotation of the earth. So, the earth turns 365.25 times per year plus one apparent rotation due to earth's orbit around the sun.

366.25 times. The Earth's "rpm" equals 366.25 rpy (revolutions per year).
There is no "apparent" rotation, that is not how gravity works.

If tidal locking is due to 'draining' of rotational energy then why does the 'draining' stop when there is still rotational energy present in the system?

The draining is caused by tides moving around a body, there are no more tides moving around the moon, hence no more draining.

Am I right to be confused?

Think harder.

Wh1stler · 30-03-2012 06:59PM

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

If the moon rotated once per orbit, every spot on the moon would either not be visible at all or would be visible twice dependent on the direction of rotation of the moon.

But will the moon continue to lose rotational enery? At some time in the future, can we expect the moon to appear to rotate as the last of its energy seeps away?

Wh1stler · 30-03-2012 07:09PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

It would need an input of energy to "break" the tidal lock to stop rotating altogether, and consequently from the Earth appear to be turning the other way.

Then tidal locking imparts just enough energy to balance the energy that is lost from the moon's rotational energy?

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Think harder.

I'm trying.

Cú Giobach · 30-03-2012 07:13PM

gkell2 wrote: »

Maybe you can get a lot of 10 years olds to believe you but a normal reasoning adult wouldn't and especially in this day and age.As men have landed on the moon,an astronaut can look out at a rotating Earth from a non rotating moon,if he chooses not to look at the Earth any longer he hops into his lunar buggy and drives to the far side of the moon and why? - because the moon doesn't spin.I would say a 10 year old would probably interpret the rotation of the Earth once in a day where all locations can be seen (I can't believe I have to explain this !) from any point in space where the Earth is in view except for a non rotating moon and the side that always faces away from us -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxrIMHKobk0

Look,if you want a spinning moon and Venus turning in 23 hours because Isaac says so then fine,when he got to retrogrades and Kepler's work he did more of the same .It doesn't even take an astronomer to figure out the moon doesn't spin so if readers can bear to believe in such a thing,it is no surprise why 'big bang' is so dominant.

I'm still waiting for you to explain something.
If the moon does not rotate, and the Earth only rotates 365.25 times a year, then how do you explain the single retrograde rotation of Uranus in exactly one Uranian year.
What could cause this mindbogglingly unlikely coincidence to occur?

Cú Giobach · 30-03-2012 07:23PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

Then tidal locking imparts just enough energy to balance the energy that is lost from the moon's rotational energy?

Watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rof7-ZcjSc

I'm trying.

Just try not to get sidetracked by people with weird agendas.

gkell2 · 30-03-2012 07:30PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

By that same reasoning, the earth would have to rotate twice each year for us to experience one sunrise each year so therefore the earth must rotate 366 times per year in order that we can observe 365 sunrises each year and 367 times, for a leap year, in order to observe 366 sunrises.

Do you see Uranus turn from East to West to the central Sun ?

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

Uranus is like the Earth in that its rotational alignment is constant throughout its orbit,no matter what month of the year it is on Earth the stars seem to turn around the North star (Polaris) on Earth and whatever the equivalent star is for Uranus.

Walk/orbit around a central object/Sun using a brush handle to substitute for the constant pointing of the Earth to Polaris by picking any external point.In order to maintain that alignment as you walk/orbit, you will find that different parts of your body face the central object at different times as sometimes you have to walk sideways and backwards to maintain the alignment.This is what you are seeing in the sequence of images above but unless you actually get up and do this experiment you will find it difficult to put into proper context.It is new and there is an unfamiliarity about it but is 100% correct and observed.

You are supposed to conclude that as the Earth orbits the Sun its turns once due to its orbital behavior and completely separate to its daily rotation.This is what causes polar day/night as a little over a week ago the polar coordinates turned through the circle of illumination at the South pole and into roughly 6 months of polar darkness until it turns back through the circle of illumination at the September equinox.

A planet turns once to the central Sun in its orbital cycle,the moon doesn't turn once in its orbital circuit and it is the latter nonsense that is distracting from a better explanation for the Earth's seasons and why natural noon cycles vary.

All it takes is a bit of effort or talent.

gkell2 · 30-03-2012 07:56PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to explain something.
If the moon does not rotate, and the Earth only rotates 365.25 times a year, then how do you explain the single retrograde rotation of Uranus in exactly one Uranian year.
What could cause this mindbogglingly unlikely coincidence to occur?

Look,a planet does turn once to the central Sun due to its orbital behavior while the moon always keeps the same face,you can;t compete with actual time lapse footage while an unfortunate kid plays around with a tennis ball and fruit.

Anyone who cares to resolve the observation where Uranus turns East to West separately from its South to North daily rotation need only enact the imitation analogy with a brush handle substituting for the constant polar alignment of Uranus to a fixed point throughout its orbital circuit and walking/orbiting a central object/Sun is almost self-explanatory.

I won't descend to a point where I have to describe the difference between orbital motion and daily rotation and I am certainly not throwing the images of Uranus after something as mindnumbing as a spinning moon.

You have plenty of victims who will accept lunar rotation,'big bang' and Newton's idea that Venus turns in 23 hours half a paragraph before he concludes,as the only person in the history of humanity,that the moon spins.You cannot pull out a reference to lunar rotation from any astronomy anywhere stretching back to antiquity but then again this era is quite apart from any other for all the wrong reasons.

AugustusMinimus · 30-03-2012 08:02PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

But will the moon continue to lose rotational enery? At some time in the future, can we expect the moon to appear to rotate as the last of its energy seeps away?

No. The moon has lost as much energy as it can lose. For it to slow down any further, it would require energy to do so. In fact, if the moon stopped rotating, tidal locking would ensure it would start rotating again as the moon lowest energy state is when it is tidally locked.

gkell2 · 30-03-2012 08:12PM

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

No. The moon has lost as much energy as it can lose. For it to slow down any further, it would require energy to do so. In fact, if the moon stopped rotating, tidal locking would ensure it would start rotating again as the moon lowest energy state is when it is tidally locked.

A spinning moon indeed !.

It actually says more about the people who come to this forum and don't respond than those who actually imagine the moon rotates without being able to see all sides during its lunar orbit,it is not the sheer difficulty in imagining lunar rotation but its impossibility however you are the same guys who believe in limits to time and space which is also an impossibility.

For an astronomer this is heartbreaking that astronomy has wound down to this and all for the lack of common sense,in some respects when you try to introduce an unneeded lunar rotation on top of its lunar orbital circuit of the Earth,you are merely doing what astronomers have always found ridiculous,the difference is that this era doesn't have any astronomical standards by which to put a stop to these things -

" although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles" Copernicus

A spinning moon is a monster in an era that is neither scientific nor religious,at least in these matters.

Cú Giobach · 30-03-2012 08:15PM

gkell2 wrote: »

Look,a planet does turn once to the central Sun due to its orbital behavior while the moon always keeps the same face,you can;t compete with actual time lapse footage while an unfortunate kid plays around with a tennis ball and fruit.

Anyone who cares to resolve the observation where Uranus turns East to West separately from its South to North daily rotation need only enact the imitation analogy with a brush handle substituting for the constant polar alignment of Uranus to a fixed point throughout its orbital circuit and walking/orbiting a central object/Sun is almost self-explanatory.

I won't descend to a point where I have to describe the difference between orbital motion and daily rotation and I am certainly not throwing the images of Uranus after something as mindnumbing as a spinning moon.

You have plenty of victims who will accept lunar rotation,'big bang' and Newton's idea that Venus turns in 23 hours half a paragraph before he concludes,as the only person in the history of humanity,that the moon spins.You cannot pull out a reference to lunar rotation from any astronomy anywhere stretching back to antiquity but then again this era is quite apart from any other for all the wrong reasons.

If the moon is not rotating and is showing the same face to Earth then if Uranus did not have a single retrograde rotation per year it too would show the same face to the Sun, it does not, therefore it must either have exactly one retrograde rotation per year (so unlikely as to be almost impossible) or your theory is flawed (much more likely).

AugustusMinimus · 30-03-2012 08:15PM

gkell2 wrote: »

A spinning moon indeed !.

It actually says more about the people who come to this forum and don't respond than those who actually imagine the moon rotates without being able to see all sides during its lunar orbit,it is not the sheer difficulty in imagining lunar rotation but its impossibility however you are the same guys who believe in limits to time and space which is also an impossibility.

For an astronomer this is heartbreaking that astronomy has wound down to this and all for the lack of common sense,in some respects when you try to introduce an unneeded lunar rotation on top of its lunar orbital circuit of the Earth,you are merely doing what astronomers have always found ridiculous,the difference is that this era doesn't have any astronomical standards by which to put a stop to these things -

" although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles" Copernicus

A spinning moon is a monster in an era that is neither scientific nor religious,at least in these matters.

I have no doubt that if God exists, he's laughing at you as much as everyone else in this thread.

gkell2 · 30-03-2012 08:37PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If the moon is not rotating and is showing the same face to Earth then if Uranus did not have a single retrograde rotation per year it too would show the same face to the Sun, it does not, therefore it must either have exactly one retrograde rotation per year (so unlikely as to be almost impossible) or your theory is flawed (much more likely).

You are addressing the person who actually interpreted the images of Uranus,created the imitation analogy and applied it to terrestrial effects such as why we have the seasons and why natural noon cycles vary.It is the product of many years work that involves a concentration and a spacial awareness that you can hardly imagine despite the fact that it is presented in very simple language and it is done so that observers may share the same picture of things rather than self-serving.

So that very thing you call 'retrograde rotation',and it is nothing of the sort,is a product of my work and mine alone.Watching something as new as this mishandled by an era that has done the same to all the other astronomical works is painful in the extreme .

You have plenty of victims out there who will buy into the idea that the oldest galaxies are the furthest and the nearest galaxies are the youngest and even lunar rotation.Unless you really want to interpret those images of Uranus correctly I suggest you drop lunar rotation and apply the imitation analogy so at least you don't start using terms like 'retrograde rotation' to planets.

Cú Giobach · 30-03-2012 08:46PM

gkell2 wrote: »

You are addressing the person who actually interpreted the images of Uranus,created the imitation analogy and applied it to terrestrial effects such as why we have the seasons and why natural noon cycles vary.It is the product of many years work that involves a concentration and a spacial awareness that you can hardly imagine despite the fact that it is presented in very simple language and it is done so that observers may share the same picture of things rather than self-serving.

So that very thing you call 'retrograde rotation',and it is nothing of the sort,is a product of my work and mine alone.Watching something as new as this mishandled by an era that has done the same to all the other astronomical works is painful in the extreme .

You still haven't explained.
I'm waiting.

gkell2 · 30-03-2012 09:41PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You still haven't explained.
I'm waiting.

Without either effort or talent,that is a long wait for a train that doesn't come.

The sequence of images are fairly straightforward in context of the simple imitation analogy but applying them to planetary characteristics when combined with daily rotation is quite intricate.

Different day,different audience.

Cú Giobach · 30-03-2012 10:50PM

gkell2 wrote: »

Without either effort or talent,that is a long wait for a train that doesn't come.

The sequence of images are fairly straightforward in context of the simple imitation analogy but applying them to planetary characteristics when combined with daily rotation is quite intricate.

Different day,different audience.

As intricate as epicycles to explain a geocentric universe, no doubt. :rolleyes:
Unless you are going to offer a solution to this "little" issue then all your ramblings on and on about it, are totally meaningless.
You can't just come here, waffle on about something, then when the inevitable difficult questions are asked refuse to answer them. That is a total cop out.

I'll be waiting with baited breath to see your work in Science, Nature or The Astronomical Journal.

Wh1stler · 31-03-2012 05:56AM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rof7-ZcjSc

Just try not to get sidetracked by people with weird agendas.

Let me put it this way; if the earth was to suddenly disappear and the moon was released from the grip of earth's gravity, would the moon continue to turn on its axis?

The moon has a tendency to move along a path in a direction which is roughly perpendicular to the surface of earth. Gravity has the strongest grip on the part of the moon that is closest to earth and that area of the moon suffers 'bulging' as an effect of gravity.

It is as if the surface of the moon and earth's gravity are perfectly meshed cogs; cogs that do not turn relative to each other.

As the moon moves around the earth, the mass of the bulge tries to move forward of earth's centre of gravity. But this is the part that earth has in its grip and upon which it exerts the largest force. The attempt by the bulge to move in a perpendicular direction to the surface of the earth causes the moon to try and lift itself out of the earth's 'gravity' well and the bulge 'falls' down, in free-fall, towards the earth.

From the moon's perspective, it is like a sail-boat on the sea; the wind in the sail exerts a torque which is counteracted by the buoyancy characteristic of the boat and if the boat doesn't capsize, it acquires motion. The boat does not spin but a twisting force is applied.

The sail is like the bulge, the wind is like gravity and the boat's orientation to the sea is like tidal locking; the force that causes the motion is the force that applies the twist and the orientation of the moon is due to its shape and how that sets the 'buoyancy' parameters.

If you were to imagine the earth as being flat and formed into a mobius strip, the orbit of the moon would be represented as a line that is roughly equidistant from the strip.

When we think of the earth/moon system in this way, as in the sail-boat analogy, the moon does not turn.

Surely, if the moon is rotating then it would be falling towards the earth? But it seems to be moving away.

Surely there is a difference between 'the moon rotating' and 'a twisting force being exerted upon the moon by the earth in order to keep the moon in orbit'? And doesn't that force actually prevent the moon from turning at the expense of pushing the moon away a little?

i.e., doesn't tidal locking occur not when the ratio of spin to orbit is 1:1 but rather 0:1?

Or when the number of 'earthrises' as viewed from the moon equals zero?

Where am I going wrong?

Time : Expansion of The Universe

Comments