|
Chatroom |
|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
15-July-2002, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
<html>Silas,
As you may remember I told the Celestial Mechanic that I was completely baffled. Well, as usual I'm wrong. When I thought he couldn't do anything any more ridiculous; he exceeded my expectations. I have asked him repeatedly to do 5 minutes of homework to prove me wrong; instead we have received 8 posts totaling 34000 bytes. Very little of that data even pertains. Most of it is illogical bragging, either of his own or of someone else quoted from books that I've said were wrong. Silas, Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Um... I don't get it. Once you roll the plane, it is no longer planar. You're once again writing your own dictionary. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I'm sorry. For the last few hundred years everyone has said the space between the Earth and the Moon was an elliptical "plane". It was thought and taught that the Earth-Moon barycenter was at one focus of that ellipse. I have apparently proven that concept wrong. You are correct we aren't dealing with a "plane", in the normal sense or the word. Einstein said: "In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail. . .". I try to warp space to much sometimes. You've heard about teaching old dogs, new tricks. I have proved to myself beyond doubt that the focus of Earth's ellipse, and the focus of the Moon's ellipse, are separated by approximately 530 miles. Those two ellipses are the bases of two cones whose apexes meet at their barycenter. I had asked the Celestial Mechanic to do a little homework; all I wanted was a verification of that. It should have taken him about 5 minutes to say yes or no. I didn't need 8 pages of argument; a simple yes or no is fine. Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Math question: do you know how to calculate the area and periphery of an ellipse? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. I have the formulas written here in my note book. I used them the first time I figured that the Moon killed the dinosaurs. This B-B has been such a farce I haven't needed to get into that yet. Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------- The moon's orbit is *almost* circular, but at the level of numerical precision you're using, you can't treat it as a circle any longer. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I know that, but it's such a pain having a showoff around. With the calculator here you just copy and paste, and the big numbers just happen; they don't mean anything. Silas, if you would like I can help you with the use of the Ephemeris and that way you can prove to yourself whether I'm trying to lead you astray or giving you the straight info. As I said I had never used it until this month. The people at JPL sure made it easy. Here is the: Ephemeris Generator complements of jpl.nasa.gov As you remember I told you that if someone proved me wrong, I would sit down and shut up I still stand by that. I thought the Celestial Mechanic would do it. Perhaps he tried and found I was correct, and now he feels so bad he's putting on this ugly show thinking he can bluff out of it. I'm honest, and I call a spade a spade unless it's a shovel. Gary </HTML> |
|
15-July-2002, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Silas |
|
15-July-2002, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Don |
|
15-July-2002, 08:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
15-July-2002, 09:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This has got to be without a doubt the most drawn-out-hit-ones-head-against-a-wall-WAY-past-the-point-of-diminishing-returns post I have yet seen.
CJSF
__________________
Two years ago moved from my town I was looking up past the city lights But the city lights got in my way See the constellation ride across the sky No cigar, no lady on his arm Just a guy made of dots and lines -from "See The Constellation" by They Might Be Giants |
|
15-July-2002, 09:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
One thing we've all been trying to do, Gary, is show you where you are making your mistakes.
You are attempting a logical argument to show that your model is correct, and the standard one is incorrect. That's all well and good. You'd like us to double-check your math, but we think that there is a simpler way to refute you. Basically, there are two ways to refute a logical argument. One is to show that the argument has logical flaws (e.g. begging the question, personal incredulity, etc.). The second is to show that the assumptions the argument takes are false. All arguments must make assumptions. Yours does as well. What we have been trying to do is show you that your assumptions are false. If they are indeed false, there is no need to even look at the formal logic. That is to say, if torque does not work the way you think it does, if orbits cannot form the way you describe, etc, then your model is false. Quod erat demonstrandum. Everything that CM has posted is relevant to this excercise. You just don't like what it shows.
__________________
Jeff Schwarz __________________________________________________ Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM |
|
15-July-2002, 09:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm looking for documentary proof, but here's what I understand about the history of the "Moon's semi-major axis is increasing" model.
It seems that the idea arose from the formulae in Newton's Principia. It was clear that the Moon should "fall away" from the Earth, but no one could figure out exactly how to model this. What are the frictional forces involved with the oceans against the continents, etc. Several people, including Lord Kelvin, Halley, and George Darwin tackled the problem. The math got better and better, and finally in the 20th century we had the ability to accurately measure distances and whatnot and see what the rate actually was, and did it agree with the theory. It did agree. GR would like us to think that the "Tidal Forces Hypothesis" was an ad hoc model to account for the new data we had. No. The data simply confirmed a prediction made 400 years before.
__________________
Jeff Schwarz __________________________________________________ Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM |
|
15-July-2002, 11:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
16-July-2002, 12:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
oh. Oops.
But do I at least have the part right that this should be happening came from Newton as part of his analysis of the tides? I realized that I was greatly simplifying the history, but I didn't want to goof it completely up. Mea culpa. My point is that the idea came from the math, which turned out to be incredibly complex. But that idea led to people looking for evidence of it (in devonian corals, tidal rhythmites, etc) as opposed to GR's notion that the evidence led to the ad hoc creation of the current model. I just don't think that E. Halley and Newton knew about the rhythmites and corals.
__________________
Jeff Schwarz __________________________________________________ Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM |
|
16-July-2002, 12:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
And by the way, thanks, Grapes, for helping to keep me honest here.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
__________________
Jeff Schwarz __________________________________________________ Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM |
|
16-July-2002, 02:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
you da man, Jeff
|
|
16-July-2002, 03:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Seriously, while, yes, we have been banging our heads against Mr. Redmond...and he has been banging his head against us...it has at least remained polite (which is probably the ONLY reason that our good host, the B.A., has not padlocked it.) Have we reached the point of diminishing returns? Heck, we hit that point when we began! But even diminishing returns are still returns, and I (and others!) are still learning stuff here. Our challenger is (I'm quite certain!) wrong, but he is challenging us, and we're honing our skills at "explainers" in trying to hit back. Plus, the concepts involved -- torque, cross-product, vectors, etc. -- are really cool, and I love reading about them! Silas |
|
16-July-2002, 04:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Also this never-ending-thread has kept this post accessible to me. (trying the link to a post thingy)
Making it look nice. Kizarvexis Edits: 1. Ah, threads start at zero. 2. formatting <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kizarvexis on 2002-07-16 00:00 ]</font> <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kizarvexis on 2002-07-16 00:04 ]</font> |
|
16-July-2002, 05:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Geo3gh
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------- All arguments must make assumptions. Yours does as well. -------------------------------------------------------- Let me make these assumptions: I assume that the on-line Ephemeris posted by JPL is correct. I assume that at least one of you knows how to use it. If that is incorrect I assume that at least one of you is intelligent enough to figure out how to use it. The Celestial Mechanic suggested that I find the average of the Moon's declination. He suggested, insisted, or implied that the result would be "0" or that the Moon's ellipse would pass through the Earth at the equator. It does not. Please check it out. Here are the questions: Why does it appear that the Moon's elliptical plane pass through the Earth at approximately 7.5 degrees south latitude? How does your "tidal forces" explain that? Jeff, my physics book was very clear how torque works. Your "R cross F" explanation was also very clear in that it proves where the Moon's gravitational pull works on the Earth. However you didn't make it clear to everyone that there is no torque involved because the point of support is the point of application thus the effectiveness is zero. The Moon does not torque the Earth. Silas, Quote: -------------------------------------------------------- Okay. "No." -------------------------------------------------------- That hardly seems fair. I don't believe you went to the Ephemeris I don't believe you entered a point on the Earth's equator. I don't believe you asked for 19 years of RA declination in CSV format. I don't believe you placed that data in a spread sheet. I don't believe you asked for an average declination. An I know you didn't honestly get a negative answer as I did. If you leave without at least checking to see what I found it would seem very silly to me, but that's your choice. GrapesOfWrath Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------- I've been on vacation, so I may be mistaken in recognizing just where you proved that the focii are separated by 530 miles. Would you mind pointing to that post? Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps this is the reason I never went to school. I don't know how to prove it to you. You have to prove it to yourself. The Celestial Mechanic told us how to do it. I've done it, and it's not that difficult. As I just told Silas and Jeff, go to the Ephemeris, then you chose the Moon as target, and a point on the equator as your location something like this: ================================================== Ephemeris Generator Ephemeris Settings Target Body: Satellite Moon Observer Location: User Specified Location Coordinates: 0°00'00.0''E 0°00'00.0''N From: A.D. 1983-01-01 00:00 UT To: A.D. 2002-01-01 00:00 Step: 1 day Format: Calendar Date and Time Output Quantities: 1 Ref. Frame RA/Dec Format: J2000 Degrees Apparent Coordinates Model: Airless ================================================== = Then you request it in CSV so you can use a spreadsheet. Then you just take an average of the declination numbers. The answers stay negative until you get to about 7 degrees south latitude. They then start bouncing until about 8 degrees south latitude where they go positive. What that means is the Moon's elliptic plane is south of the Earth's elliptic plane. At 70 miles per degree that's somewhere over 490 miles. The 530 is a best guess at this point. I can set here and say this a thousand times and in a thousand different ways, but you need to do it yourself. DoctorDon, That goes for you as well. You won't believe me; no matter how I say it, because it doesn't come from your books. By the way did you ever go kick the stick. All I ask is that you go to the Ephemeris and check it out. You must agree that I can't go mess up the JPL source files. Can I? I've said this before, you've wasted 4 months arguing with me why not take 10 minutes and prove to yourself what I'm saying. ================================================== ======== roidspop Posted: 2002-07-04 23:13*** Quote: ----------------------------------------------------------- the ONLY teacher a person ever has is himself. ================================================== ========= Please don't listen to me, go look it up and teach yourselves. The Moon's ellipse does not align with the Earth's ellipse. Why is that? Gary |
|
16-July-2002, 05:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
16-July-2002, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
When it comes to astronomy, I trust the person who went through 4 years of college astronomy and physics courses and whatever masters and doctoral work. It's also extremely insulting to scientists everywhere when someone without the schooling to back it up calls them wrong. Mongo PS I'm not saying that you have to go to college or have a degree in astronomy to understand it or contribute to it. Just respect what it takes. I haven't contributed to this post untill now because I don't feel it belongs in this forum and I wouldn't have read it if it wasn't. |
|
16-July-2002, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
GrapesOfWrath
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------- But you said you have proven it to yourself. Is it that your personal criteria for a proof is somewhat less than mine? -------------------------------------------------------- Absolutely not. It is very evident that several of the persons here on the B-B lie. I certainly would hate to have anyone accuse me of that. I've said on many occasions that the astronomy books are wrong, but I've not said they lie. Others have said that I said that, but I have not. There is a vast difference between being wrong and lying. As you may recall, on June 25 towards the bottom of page 10 of this thread you said: ------------------------------------------------------------- Gary, are you aware that the amount of Mercury precession is nearly 600 arcseconds per century, whereas general relativity explains only 43 arcseconds of that? -------------------------------------------------------------- In my response to that post on June 25, I made some predictions. First the Moon is traveling 12-13 mph slower than the Earth. Second that speed difference causes the Moon's ellipse to not fall in the same plane as the Earth's ellipse. I predicted by 550 miles correct? In that post I said the angle would be 8 minutes. I didn't explain how to derive at the 8 minutes and that explanation is still not easy to explain, but the 550 is. In response to that conversation the following post was made. ================================================== =================== Celestial Mechanic Posted: 2002-07-05 12:17*** ------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------- On 2002-07-05 11:35, Gary Redmond wrote: Celestial Mechanic, ... I think it would have been far more productive if you had looked in the Ephemeris and found out whether the Moon goes around at the Equator or some other latitude. As you may remember I predicted an 8 minute difference in latitude. I still stick by that prediction. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I predict that the average latitude and the average declination are both zero. Your homework assignment (should you choose to accept it!) is to input the declinations (I think you are more likely to find declinations than latitudes) from an ephemeris for several months into a spreadsheet. Start at the first maximum or minimum for the year, group it into months running from maximum to maximum (or minimum to minimum). Take the average of each month. They should be nearly zero, some positive, some negative. Average over the entire year. This should be about the same, maybe even smaller in magnitude than the monthly averages. Quote: ================================================== ================== So, on July 5, the Celestial Mechanic predicted the average latitude and the average declination to both be zero. I did choose to do the homework assigned by the Celestial Mechanic. The Celestial Mechanic, was wrong, very, very, wrong. The Moon does not go around the equator; the average declination is not zero. The Moon goes around the Earth at approximately 7.5 degrees south latitude. At 69 miles per degree that amounts to 517.5 miles. My prediction was 550 miles. I was within 6% I think that's good as a first guess. Further calculation could make that even closer. Here is my problem. It appears that almost everyone thinks I'm joking or have less than an adequate number of oars in the water. It also appears that some lying goes on here. Besides that, the amount of data involved is large and easily falsified. I have no reason to lie nor falsify data. Nor do I feel that I should waste 5-10 pages of this B-B with junk data. Nor do I wish to show up the Celestial Mechanic. I just think you should do it yourself. Gary |
|
16-July-2002, 06:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have done the homework that I assigned Mr. Redmond. Like Mr. Redmond I chose 1983 Jan 01 through 2002 Jan 01, however I chose geocentric coordinates. Since he chose a site on the equator, it should not make in difference in the declinations.
I find that the average declination for the period (6941 days) is -0.060019 degrees. I chose to take some averages as follows: starting on the 27th day (Row 28 of the spreadsheet, since there is a header row) and for every day thereafter I calculate the average of the previous 27 days inclusive. The maximum value in this column is about +2.188 degrees and the minimum -2.049 degrees. The average of all of these averages is -0.06055. Twenty-seven was chosen because that is the approximate length of the nodical month, which should be about the period for returns of the Moon to the equator as well. 272 days is approximately 10 nodical months, so starting with the 272nd day (row 273) and for every day thereafter I calculate the average declination for the previous 272 days inclusive. The maximum, minimum and average values in this column is +1.680, -1.563, and -0.02711 degrees respectively. One hundred nodical months is approximately 2721 days, so (you guessed it!) from the 2721st day onward I calculate the average declination for the previous 2721 days inclusive. The maximum, minimum, and average values in this column are .340, -.294, and .03159 degrees respectively. Unfortunately, I fear that my instructions may have been vague, and I apologize for it. Good thing I never got a doctorate, I would have given students simply horrible homework. But, as demonstrated here, nothing I wouldn't try myself. Again, Mr. Redmond, I urge you to examine the large sample that you have and look at the averages of 27, 272, and 2721 consecutive days.
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it. The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high. |
|
16-July-2002, 10:05 PM
|
||||
|
