[geocentrism] Moon's orbit for Regner

  • From: Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:58:16 +0000

Regner Trampedach wrote: 
Steven Jones,

  If we don't have a mathematical model of the Lunar orbit around the Earth,
how on Earth (sorry for the pun) would we be able to make such lookup tables?
Or were they handed down to us by divine powers?
Simple, the look-up tables are simply based upon the last 200 years of accurate observations relative to the Earth. By means of referencing them we can accurately go a couple of thousand years into the past or future with an error-margin of course. This does not constitute having a mathematical model, no-one on Earth has yet brought one forward. What about the three body problem also?

You forget Regner that just because I don't happen to go to a university or have a qualification, you are actually speaking to one of the best geocentrism experts in the world, and someone who is also familiar with computer programming having co-developed GU 3. Redshift, Starry Night, they are all the same, the moons motion is predicted by means of a table, it is not calculated on anything other than a table!

You should know that the moon's orbital period is known as a Sidereal Month, 27.321661 days. Sounds simple doesn't it, but it isn't! This is an average, because even in your model many factors come into play. Your very own heliocentric model will give you a hell of a time if you try and work it out, it's not just the moon cycling from new moon to new moon, because the Earth itself has moved and by your own admission the Earth's orbit is also slightly elliptical. Do you really know what your talking about on this? Do you know the difference between Sidereal, Anomalistic, Synodic, Draconic, Saros and the Tropical lunar month? All of these play a part in helping to understand the motions of the moon, but as yet, no-one has put them altogether to create a model of the orbit! It's just so unpredictably variable. The dynamic range of a synodic month is is between 29.27 to about 29.83 days, and for now this is pretty much as good as it all gets, but this is not good enough for a mathmatical model that can predict without err when the moon will rise. Newton himself spend a great-deal of time on this, but claimed it gave him a headache.

Steven.
 
  You usually want the Lunar orbit around the Earth, with respect to the Earth.
Of course you could just as well calculate the Lunar orbit around the Earth,
with respect to one of Saturn's moons. But that is not particularely
interesting
for us as humans.
  You can choose any reference frame you want. That is your privilege as the
one doing the calculation. If you choose an inertial frame, then it's easy;
all the laws of physics are unchanged. If you, e.g., choose a rotating
reference
frame - like the Earth, according to HC - then it gets more complicated, but
still very doable. You just have to include all the fictive forces arising
from that coordinate transformation, such as centrifugal and Coriolis forces.
  There is NOTHING dubious about choosing the Earth as a reference frame for a
calculation and still adhere to HC.
  Somebody on this board (I don't remember who) once leaked the hush-hush
secret that NASA were doing their calculations referenced to a stationary
Earth. NASA, as well as ESA and JAXA, etc., obviously choose the Earth to
be the reference frame and there is nothing secret or dubious about that. Also
obvious, is that they include all the fictive forces from that coordinate
transformation.

     Regards,

        Regner Trampedach

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Quoting Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

  

  


philip madsen wrote:

  
  DIV {
	MARGIN: 0px
}
  
  
  
  

Phillip, currently, no-one on Earth can give you an accurate model
predicting the orbit of the moon without the use of "look-up" tables
which are all geocentric based. No need to attack Allan in this way.
He's a bright cookie!



Steven.



  
  Dear Paul,
  Why did you find it necessary to patronise Regner in that way?
Regarding the 'real thing' what in heavens name
is Regner doing that no-one else is?
  Â 
  Jack
  Â 
  Well from my view, Regner is a professional
Astronomer, I'm not even an amateur..But I got Wiki and a million web
sites to help me follow his words. . 
  Â 
  And Allen cannot even tell us how many
rotations the moon has. 
  Â 
  I dare not ask him the next question
concerning the axes of the moons rotations. 
  Â 
  Philip.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2007