[geocentrism] Re: (no subject)
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:57:08 +1100
Hi Philip,
I'm afraid that Paul is right, and the measurement of the Lunar sidereal
day is pretty straight forward:
* As you correctly state, the Lunar sidereal day is completely independent
of whether you prefer HC or GC, since it is just a matter of the
orientation of the Moon with respect to the stars.
* Since the Moon always shows us the (almost) same face, we just need to
look at stars that are close (in the sky) to the Moon.
* A star close to the Lunar limb, will be seen close to Zenith when viewed
from the middle of the far side of the Moon.
* Choose a specific (reference) star just above or below the Moon.
* Record when the reference star crosses the zero-line (see "drawing" below).
* Record the next time this happens, and you have a pretty good
approximation to the Lunar sidereal day.
* If you want higher precision, you can correct for the slight difference in
Lunar libration between the two times, thus would avoid the assumption of
the Moon always showing us the same face.
* For yet higher accuracy you can correct for the various parallaxes
- but that is starting to get a little ludicrous...
* |
-----------(|)-------------
|
The horizontal dashed line represents the Lunar orbit in the sky.
The vertical line is a line perpendicular to the orbit, bisecting the Moon.
I'll refer to it as the zero-line.
This: *, is our reference star that is soon to be crossed by that line.
Philip wrote:
> If HC is boxed in, so are we. There is as we have said a thousand times no
> method in this universe for us to distinguish which is moving and which is
> not in relation to each other.
>
That is quite a bit premature!... And I think I have pointed that out
a few times too... So far we have only looked at a very small selection
of observations, and we are still working on establishing whether there
are huge and obvious observational objections to HC - You and Neville,
have agreed there aren't - All the effects we will discuss in the future,
will be smaller than that of the Earth having two axis of rotation.
Regards,
Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Actually Pauls question is far more complicated from my view. In any case
> what is the sidereal day for the moon?
>
> If HC is correct then the stars will have a sidereal period close to 28 days.
> The instantaneous disruption of uncreating the earth in an instant will cause
> the moon to fly off in many different spirals around the sun according to
> which point of its orbit it was released. However it would most probably
> maintain its rotation, and so the sidereal day on the moon would be still 28
> days. give or take.
>
> But my imagination is wont to consider what is the sidereal period today if
> GC is correct. Though the moons rotation would be 24 hours in keeping with a
> 24 hour orbit, I pose it would still maintain a sidereal day of 28 earth days
> because the stars motions around the world maintains the same relative
> motions.
>
> If HC is boxed in, so are we. There is as we have said a thousand times no
> method in this universe for us to distinguish which is moving and which is
> not in relation to each other.
>
> I had hypothesised months back that both EMR and or a flywheel stability
> would give us a static platform to make observations... But this is not the
> case if we resort to a rotating aether, which is the only way we can explain
> the geostationary satellite.
>
> God has us stumped. boxed in..
>
> Philip.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Deema
> To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:36 PM
> Subject: (no subject)
>
>
> Allen D
>
> I asked the question -
>
> "What will be the Moon's sidereal period subsequent to the Earth vanishing
> at Full Moon".
>
> Here is your 'definitive' statement offered in answer to that question -
>
> " If the moon is still be moving the way it did before the earth's
> disappearance then it will see exactly the same things the same way it did
> before the earths disappearance."
>
> If I understand you correctly, your statement could be rendered more
> succinctly by -
>
> "If the Moon's motion subsequent to the event is unchanged, then its view
> will be unchanged."
>
> First, it does not answer the question which sought the magnitude of the
> sidereal period. Second, it is incorrect in that the Earth will no longer be
> in view. Third, it supposes the suspension of the laws of physics in
> unnecessarily anticipating unchanged motion on the part of the Moon upon the
> tragic loss of its primary. Fourth, it is essentially a null statement of the
> form "If nothing has changed then nothing is changed".
>
> The complete text of your reply was -
>
> 1. I did make a difinitive statment!?
>
> 2. I have never been to the moon and observer itâ??s sidereal period and
> neither have you or anyone else for that matter! Thus, any other answer to
> your question would be based on assumptions.........!?
>
> Taking 2. and leaving aside the annoying contradiction that this is both a
> statement and a question, I observe the assumption that neither I nor anyone
> else has been to the Moon and observed its sidereal period. I personally
> don't have the problem with assumption (together with 'theory', 'believe' or
> 'belief' and 'faith' among others that are routinely and narrowly used by
> fundamentalists) that you do (as witnessed by the concluding sentence) but on
> what grounds and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary do you
> make this assumption? (Rhetorical question!)
>
> The point is that the Moon's sidereal period has been known for centuries
> and could be determined by you to a tolerable level of accuracy from your own
> back yard armed with little more than your eyes, a clock, a little patience
> and perseverance and a pencil and paper. The level of confidence in the
> accuracy of your answer would be superior to that attending your
> determination of the height of a tree in your neighbourhood by the use of a
> crude theodolite and the principle of proportionality. In case it was missed,
> it is not necessary to climb a tree with a ruler in order to determine its
> height just as it is not necessary to journey to the Moon with scientific
> paraphernalia to determine its sidereal period. To insist otherwise is to
> engage in sophistry.
>
> Far from the definitive statement you suggest, I suggest that it is an
> equivocating collection of mealy mouthed weasel words.
>
> So then, I'll put the question again. Given the long known and generally
> accepted value for the Moon's sidereal period of approximately 27.322 earth
> mean solar days and the universality of the laws of physics, what change
> would you predict in this value were the Earth to vanish at the time of the
> Full Moon?
>
> Paul D
>
> PS As a concession, you need not have the Earth depart this realm at Full
> Moon -- any time you choose is acceptable.
>
> Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Allen D
>
> So essentially you lack the courage to make a definitive statement.
>
> Paul D
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, 14 December, 2007 4:31:02 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Rotation of camera
>
>
> Paul,
>
> 1. I say things the way i do to get a certain response .
>
> 2. the answer to your question is " If the moon is still be moving the way
> it did before the earth's disapearance then it will see exactly the same
> things the same way it did before the earths disappearance."
>
> Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Allen D
> Comments in this <colour>.
>
> Paul D
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, 14 December, 2007 3:24:22 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Rotation of camera
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I am Qoting Regner with my comments in blue:...I think we have found a
> source of some misunderstandings here...Sidereal means "with respect to the
> stars". No misunderstaning .<Then why the prevarication about determining
> sidereal periods?>.You sit on the Moon, look in a particular direction and
> see a star.
> The rotation of the Moon on it's axis, cause the stars to seem to
> rotate around the pole of that axis (the star trails).
> The stars will pass by your field of view. Right.
>
> If the moon is still be moving the way it did before the earth's
> disapearance then it will see exactly the same things the same way it did
> before the earths disappearance...? <Is this a question or a statement?>
>
> Rotation and gravitation are not one and the same things nor are they
> dependent upon each other. <I'm not aware that anyone has suggested that they
> are.> Gravity is and can only be used as a force for the vectors in your
> question. <I didn't ask for vectors.> However, a Gravity feild does not
> define what is and is not a rotation? <Is this a question or a statement?>
> and <I'm not aware that anyone has suggested that they are.> ...What are you
> trying to get at..? <I'm not trying to 'get at' anything. I asked a simple
> question in the hope of receiving a simple answer. No prevarication, no
> muddying of the waters, no obfuscation, no superfluous explanations, no
> eel-like manoeuvres -- a simple answer to the question "What will be the
> Moon's sidereal period subsequent to the Earth vanishing at Full Moon".>
>
>
>
> Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Allen Daves :
>
> >
> > If the earth "vanishish" then how do you define a change in sidereal
> > period? For that matter how could you define a sidereal period at
> all?....
> >
> You stare out in your particular direction until that particular
> star comes back to the same position. The time that took, is the
> sidereal period of the Moon.
>
> That star (any star) is your reference point, external to the Moon,
> that enables you to directly measure the rotation.
>
> The same, of course, works for the Earth, or any celestial object.
>
> - Regner
>
>
> > Read comments below....
> >
> > Paul Deema wrote:
> >
> > Allen D
> > No Allen -- no black dots, no brown circles, no shaft, no 'shaft
> > rotation.png'. The Earth, the Moon, the Moon's sidereal period. Go!
> > Paul D
> >
> > IÃ?Æ?Ã?ÂĒÃ?ÂĒÃĒâ?ŽÅĄÃ?ÂŽÃ?ÂĒÃĒâ?ŽÅūÃ?ÂĒm not sure i understand your
> question, but look at the attached
> > diagram. If the (earth) vanishes, the (moon) will still rotate around
> that
> > same "dimensionless" point& axis that lay outside of the moon (brown
> circle)
> > at whatever rate it was before. The axis and common point do not have to
> lay
> > in/on a physical body. (I.e. a barycenter) thus "dimensionless" = no
> physical
> > form nessisary to be real, although it gets it's meaning, location and
> > deffintion from the condition and relationships of physical forms.
> >
> > Assumptions about gravity or the center of the universe do not define a
> > rotation either way?..The/any changes in force and gravitational
> influence,
> > hold equaly true for the shaft. If the nuclear and molecular bonds (
> glue...
> > akin to gravity in the universe) in the shaft sudenly disapear then the
> shaft
> > will explode...?
> >
> > Paul Deema wrote:
> >
> > Allen D
> > Knowledgeable of your love of mind experiments ... just kidding |[:-).
> All
> > the same I have one for you which concerns rotation of the Moon.
> > The Moon has a sidereal period of approximately 27.322 mean solar days.
> At
> > full moon the Earth vanishes. Will its sidereal period change and if so
> by
> > (roughly) how much?
> > Paul D
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.2/1184 - Release Date: 14/12/2007
> 11:29 AM
>
Other related posts:
