[geocentrism] Re: Moon's orbit for Regner
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:55:34 +1100
Quoting Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > Regner Trampedach wrote:
> >
> > To calculate the Moon's orbit (or any Solar system body's) accurately,
> > you have to perform the many-body calculation of most of the Solar system.
> > That is straight forward, but costs a bit in computing time. That's how
> > it is done.
> > The three-body problem cannot be solved analytically, but it is, again,
> > straight forward to do numerically. You program all the forces, e.g.,
> > gravity, tidal forces and tidal friction, in the Solar system case, and
> > supply the starting positions and velocities, and then you advance time
> > and see how it evolves. The accuracy would be determined from running the
> > simulation backwards in time and compare with observations. All the cycles
> > of the Moon's orbit will be accounted for by this procedure, if all the
> > relevant physics is included in the model.
> > A physical model is not restricted to an analytical formulation of the
> > problem - that is most often not possible.
> > I do not know the innards of Starry Night, but my bet would be that it is
> > based on a parametrized version of the above. So indeed a table, but based
> > on many-body simulations covering both the past and the future. That is my
> > bet - not a statement of absolute truth.
> >
>
> How much do you want to bet on that? :-) Why would you
> need to do exhaustive calculations which you claim possible if you had
> a table?
>
> Steven.
>
Tables based on observations (necessarily from the past) will have limited
predictive (of the future) power. If you want to predict what happens in a
thousands of years, or you need your results with very high precision, a
couple of years into the future, you would need the simulation.
- or tables "handed down to us by divine powers".
Regards,
Regner
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
>
>
> Quoting Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:
