Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Equinox 2009

  1. #1
    ukastronomy's Avatar
    ukastronomy Guest

    Default Equinox 2009



    On 20 Mar, 13:36, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:


    The way you insult or ignore people who ask for more details about the
    specifics of your theory - or about statements you have made in the
    past that are clearly false - would indicate to me that you lack
    confidence in your own work.


  2. #2
    palsing's Avatar
    palsing Guest

    Default Equinox 2009

    On Mar 20, 8:27 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:


    Again, this is ONLY true from a central star frame of reference



    Yes, but ONLY from that single frame of reference


    Well, I AM the other guy who thinks the slow turning of the rings of
    Uranus has at least in part something to do with our ever-changing
    perspective as our planet swings from one side of its orbit to the
    other, in addition to the fact that Uranus itself moves along in its
    orbit. I am very confident that when considering ALL frames of
    reference, in the bigger picture it is just not that hard to
    understand the basic concepts.


    If we were to restrict our perspective to only that of the central
    star, we would all agree with you. But the reality of the situation is
    that we do NOT live in that windowless spacecraft orbiting the earth,
    as you apparently do. Come back down to earth and learn to see and
    appreciate the entire picture. It is much more fascinating than that
    of your narrow point-of-view.


    We don't even need modern imaging to know that there are different
    frames of reference, but you are right, modern imaging allows us to
    see that the work of the astronomers of the past couple of centuries
    can be validated with even greater accuracy.

    As long as you continue to evaluate only evidence as presented from
    this single frame of reference, you will sadly be completely alone in
    your views. Too bad, because it is a lot more interesting that that.

    \Paul A


  3. #3
    ukastronomy's Avatar
    ukastronomy Guest

    Default Equinox 2009

    On 20 Mar, 19:38, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

    So you unable to answer this simple question about your theory?

    Is the angular velocity with which the earth rotates on its axis
    variable or constant throughout the year?



  4. #4
    palsing's Avatar
    palsing Guest

    Default Equinox 2009

    On Mar 20, 1:58 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

    You keep going deeper and deeper off the far end, don't you? Now you
    are telling us that you are the only adult on this forum. You still
    insist that everything be analyzed WRT our central star and refuse to
    even acknowledge the next frame of reference outward, that being the
    sphere of essentially fixed stars. Is there some specific reason that
    you feel this next frame of reference is not important? I've got news
    for you, that graphic of the orbit of Uranus that you have thrown out
    time after time is exactly correct, when viewed from that next outward
    frame, it is absolutely NOT correct from any body in the solar system,
    including the sun. Note that at times in that graphic one pole of
    Uranus points almost exactly towards the sun, and at other times that
    same pole is aligned roughly 90 degrees from the sun's direction. From
    the sun's perspective the planet has made a slow turn, but from the
    next frame outwards it is pretty clear that the planet has not turned
    at all, the pole still points to whatever star is had pointed to
    beforehand, and it is the revolution around the sun that is the basis
    for this effect. I showed that graphic to my 11-year-old
    granddaughter, and after a little explanation, she understands
    perfectly! Why can't you? Is it so impossible for you to admit that
    you are wrong? I'm wrong about various things all the time, but not
    about this, and I have literally thousands of living supporters world
    wide. How many do you have? After reviewing all of the evidence,
    Copernicus wouldn't agree with you, nor would Galileo, Newton, Brahe,
    or any of the rest of the great astronomers throughout history, living
    or dead. On this issue you clearly stand alone.

    Now you have "tackled" the earth's differential rotation "problem",
    all this from the fairly well-known fact that the sun and other stars
    have (WOW!) differential rotation. Although it might seem perfectly
    logical that such a thing might exist, I doubt very much that anyone
    would be able to actually document that the earth's rotation period is
    different at the poles than it is at the equator, the Delta must be
    way out at the 15th or 20th decimal point and virtually unmeasurable
    using current technology. After all, the sun is composed of only gas,
    and even in that article you linked to (above), the sun's diameter at
    its equation is only .001 percent larger than it is at the poles.
    Quite a bulge, eh? Differential rotation in the earth is greatest
    about 400km below the surface of the earth, and to the best of my
    knowledge barely exists at the surface, if at all. Those fractures on
    the sea floor that run parallel to the lines of latitude might be
    residual evidence of some sort, but they have taken millions and
    millions of years to develop, and in any case are too minuscule to
    take seriously. In fact, that article doesn't even mention
    differential rotation, and has a completely different explanation for
    them. So what are you saying, that you see something there that many
    scientists don't see? Another case of Oriel against the establishment?

    Without a light bulb going off in the far recesses of your mind,
    without you accepting constructive criticism, I'm afraid that it is a
    huge waste of time in trying to help you out, and it is tiresome to
    constantly be bombarded by the same old insults, the same old tired
    links you provide, and the same old dead astronomer's quotes, most of
    which are perfectly correct but which you choose to mis-interpret. You
    just don't get it. If you can't see the value of analysis from
    different frames of reference, then you are not a genuine astronomer,
    you cannot be a genuine scientist of any kind, so get over it
    already.

    \Paul A


  5. #5
    ukastronomy's Avatar
    ukastronomy Guest

    Default Equinox 2009

    On 20 Mar, 20:58, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

    So you really are unable to answer this simple question about your
    theory?

    Is the angular velocity with which the earth rotates on its axis
    variable or constant throughout the year?



    I agree with the poster who wrote -

    " ....I'm afraid that it is a huge waste of time in trying to help you
    out, and it is tiresome to constantly be bombarded by the same old
    insults, the same old tired links you provide, and the same old dead
    astronomer's quotes, most of
    which are perfectly correct but which you choose to mis-interpret."






  6. #6
    ukastronomy's Avatar
    ukastronomy Guest

    Default Equinox 2009

    On 21 Mar, 11:19, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

    <same old, endlessly repeated material deleted>

    So you really are unable to answer this simple question about your
    theory? Is the angular velocity with which the earth rotates on its
    axis
    variable or constant throughout the year?

    Not a difficult question but central to your theory so why no answer?


    I agree with the poster who wrote -


    " ....I'm afraid that it is a huge waste of time in trying to help
    you
    out, and it is tiresome to constantly be bombarded by the same old
    insults, the same old tired links you provide, and the same old dead
    astronomer's quotes, most of
    which are perfectly correct but which you choose to mis-interpret."



  7. #7
    ukastronomy's Avatar
    ukastronomy Guest

    Default Equinox 2009

    On 21 Mar, 13:09, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

    <Same old, endlessly repeated material deleted>

    Answering my quesions about your theory should not involve you
    repeating the same tired old phases again and again.

    So I ask again "Is the angular velocity with which the earth rotates
    on its axis variable or constant throughout the year?

    A one word answer is encouraged


  8. #8
    Curtis Croulet's Avatar
    Curtis Croulet Guest

    Default Equinox 2009

    > Not a difficult question but central to your theory so why no answer?

    He won't answer your question. In fact, he'll expend any effort necessary
    to post a lengthy reply which yet doesn't contain a simple, declarative,
    English-language answer.
    --
    Curtis Croulet
    Temecula, California
    33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W



  9. #9
    ukastronomy's Avatar
    ukastronomy Guest

    Default Oriel = kelleher admits defeat!

    On 21 Mar, 22:17, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
    <Same old, endlessly repeated material deleted>


    Answering my quesions about your theory should not involve you
    repeating the same tired old phases again and again.


    So I ask again "Is the angular velocity with which the earth rotates
    on its axis variable or constant throughout the year?


    A one word answer is encouraged



 

 

Similar Threads

  1. The Equinox 2009
    By berk in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-03-2009, 07:25 PM
  2. Equinox 2009
    By ukastronomy in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 02:07 PM
  3. The Equinox
    By oriel36 in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-20-2007, 07:28 PM
  4. The Equinox
    By oriel36 in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-06-2007, 06:47 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:16 AM.