| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
 |
|
| Komorikid wrote: | | Well Chad is indeed correct and if you take 2000 to 2020 it works out about the same as well. |
So when you wrote (amongst other things)...
| By applying Kepler's Law to the Earth's orbit, the perihelion and aphelion points are placed in early January and July. However, the time it takes for the Earth to move between these astronomical points, January to July is 72 hours less than the time it takes to move from July to January, sweeping out equal areas in unequal times. Thus, applying Kepler's Law to determine the perihelion and aphelion of the Earth's orbit disproves Kepler's Law! |
...you now accept you were talking complete bollocks!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
O.K. let's try to keep this simple.
There is no mystery about the changing P-A/A-P ratio.
It is influenced by many factors (including the pull of other planets) but most of them are negligible and can be disregarded as far as we are concerned... we need worry about just two - - the disparity between calendar and Solar year and the influence of the Moon on Earth's Solar orbit.
Of these, the first will only affect matters by a few hours, but the second will affect matters by a few days. The first is expected, predictable and needs no further comment... the second, as far as I am concerned, is also expected and predictable, but for some reason needs elaborating upon.
If we assume the Solar orbital path described by the Earth-Moon centre of gravity is a more or less smooth ellipse, we must all agree that the path described by the centre of the Earth will weave in and out of the orbital mean... on a twenty eight day cycle.
For a few days on either side of the P or A of the binary unit, the Solar orbital radius (measured from the joint centre of gravity) will change by an amount less than the change in Solar orbital radius (measured from the centre of the Earth) caused by the weaving action of the 28 day binary rotation.
It doesn't take a genius to see that this alone could easily shift P or A by a day or so in either direction (depending upon where one is in the 28 day cycle). And a one day shift at both ends can amount to a 4 day difference in the P-A/A-P ratio.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Chad wrote:
| ...you now accept you were talking complete bollocks! |
Did you find ANY instance in your little exercise that showed that the Earth sweeps out equal areas in equal times?
In the twenty year I used it NEVER happened.
And it NEVER happened for you either.
Kepler's Law REQUIRES equal areas in equal times.
Just in case you missed it the first time Chad
Kepler's Law REQUIRES equal areas in equal times.
Applying Kepler's to reality disproves it.
My statement stands.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
Stop shouting for fuck sake!
If you use the centre of gravity of the Earth-Moon binary to determine P and A instead of the centre of the Earth... Kepler's law works fine and dandy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
KK said:
| As he arcs towards your 12 o'clock you are catching up to him... Seems pretty clear cut to me |
You are trapped in a fallacy and yet you accuse me of having a problem with 3D spacial (sic) movement. This is basic stuff KK, please just stop and think. For the chap walking around you in the park, he will have to constantly change his speed to match yours, because you give him no 'forward' movement at all (to match yours) as he crosses ahead of you. This is not how orbits work, where both of the objects have the same 'forward' speed, independent of their own relative movement. This is also not how any rotating object works, which doesn't care whether it is stationary or moving - either way its centre never feels the urge to overtake its periphery. If this were not the case we could chuck out Einstein as well since we could measure our absolute speed (and direction) based on how much a rotating object distorts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | | Did you find ANY instance in your little exercise that showed that the Earth sweeps out equal areas in equal times? |
No... but just in case you missed it first time Komorikid:
If you use the centre of gravity of the Earth-Moon binary to determine perihelion and aphelion, instead of the centre of the Earth... Kepler's law works fine and dandy.
Or to put it another way:
The Earth-Moon binary centre of gravity sweeps out equal areas in equal times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | The Earth-Moon binary centre of gravity sweeps out equal areas in equal times. |
And that is, to be precise, just as Newton would have it. It's not about bodies but centers of gravity.
So Komori... perhaps you have an answer?
I really do think though you should be prepared to back down if you do not. Remember: Many of us here are still sympathetic to electro-magnetism as a neglected force. We just haven't yet seen reason to discard Newton.
But you are welcome to provide that evidence, if you believe you can.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| ...both of the objects have the same 'forward' speed, independent of their own relative movement. |
Sorry Brian but this is what we're told orbits work like based on Kepler and Newton. Which is based on a stationary Sun. The speeding up and slowing down to create an elliptical orbit are based on on this false notion that the rate was changing around a fixed primary.
Kepler expected to find circular orbits. He believed the Earth's rate was fixed. A stationary Sun with the Earth's rate unchanging would give him his perfect circular orbits. But they weren't circular they were elliptical.
He had no option but to assume the rate was changing and thereby causing the Earth to speed up and slow down to create the elliptical path.
If the Sun is moving and the Earth's rate is fixed then an ellipse is the result.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
I have just realised why Komorikid (and the guy who originated the idea he has latched on to) have gotten things so badly wrong.
The perihelion and aphelion of the Earth itself, do not occur at the same points on the Solar orbit each year (due to the 28 day Lunar induced wobble) nor are they ever diametrically opposite one another (for the same reason), so:
The Earth, in reality) does not (as Komo states) sweep equal areas in unequal times, but actually sweeps UNequal areas in UNequal times.
Nothing extraordinary there then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Chad wrote:
| It doesn't take a genius to see that this alone could easily shift P or A by a day or so in either direction (depending upon where one is in the 28 day cycle). And a one day shift at both ends can amount to a 4 day difference in the P-A/A-P ratio. |
This may and I emphasise may, possibly explain why there is a shift in both directions. But the reason why it shifts is not the issue.
The fact is there is a shift.
Sometimes the Earth/Moon 'appears' to be falling towards the Sun and sometimes it 'appears' to be falling away from the Sun.
All you are saying is the Earth/Moon barycentre sweeps out equal areas in unequal times.
Same dog different leg action.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
The Earth...actually sweeps Unequal areas in Unequal times.
Nothing extraordinary there then. |
No 'course not.
See Kepler was right all along.
It was a typo
Totally UNbelievable!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | | All you are saying is the Earth/Moon barycentre sweeps out equal areas in unequal times. |
No... read it again sunshine... what I'm saying is:
"The Earth/Moon barycentre sweeps out equal areas in equal times."
If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
All the "evidence" you have come up with so far has related solely to the Earth... and you have managed to cock that up quite spectacularly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | No 'course not.
See Kepler was right all along.
It was a typo
Totally UNbelievable! |
I hope that's an acceptance of error on your part... rather than a feeble attempt at sarcasm.
Wanker!
(Sorry... must try to control my Tourrettes.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Komori has made the error of too quickly committing himself emotionally to material that simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny --- at least in this case. Perhaps some of his other material has some value.
Oddly: His emotional attachment to the ideas of others exceeds my own attachment to ideas that I actually originated! I get the feeling I'd more quickly discard my favorite pet theory than he would any of this material.
I generally give an idea's originator a pass when it comes to objectivity. It's really too much to ask for from one mind that it be both creative and dispassionate.
But Komori didn't devise this stuff. He just read about it and found it persuasive. Yet his posts seethe with contempt for the orthodox account (and the orthodox scientists who devised it) -- you'd think they picked on him back in high-school!
Sorry Komori -- but it's true!
If you're going to get arrogant about an idea, it's best to do it tongue-in-cheek, or wait until you know it all checks out and actually produces something.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
KK said:
| If the Sun is moving and the Earth's rate is fixed then an ellipse is the result |
You doggedly refuse to see that both the Sun AND the earth are moving. At every instant, for each centimetre the Sun moves, the earth moves the same amount in the same direction, once you factor out its own motion around the sun. Your man in the park is not only walking around you, he is sidestepping ALL THE TIME to match your pace and by doing this maintains a perfect circle.
Mr Bros is simply wrong. I've tried to explain why that is. The earth-sun relationship doesn't give a monkey's cuss whether it is 'stationary', moving relative to the galaxy, moving relative to something else, or something else (like a galaxy) is moving relative to it. In its own frame of reference there is nothing different between these scenarios, and there is nothing that it can detect to know which scenario it is in. In fact, there is no such thing as the scenario. It is unknowable, all motion is relative. Now, acceleration, that is knowable. But you are not talking about acceleration.
I think I give up now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
