It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Whether smokestacks work or not is beside the point. OK, make it a nice radio astronomy antenna array, where you can make a fix on a particular spot so far away that there is no discernible movement, and you designate it as " a fixed location". Then, every time that fixed location is directly centered in your antenna array, which always stays pointed in one direction, you put the location of Mars on a graph. What I am saying is that if done this way, Mars would not retrograde on your graph. Retrograde is caused by the speeding up and slowing down of Mars. When compared to a zodiac moving, sometimes it beats the zodiac, and sometimes it falls behind. Mars does not turn around and go back, the earth goes into a different position in relationship to the sun, causing your observation point to change its angle. This phenomenon happens, whether the earth orbits the sun, or the sun orbits the earth, it does not matter which one it is, it has to do with an uneven orbit of Mars that causes it to slow down and speed up.
Originally posted by iterationzero
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by iterationzero
If you had a big tube, or a really tall smokestack that was not being used, to where you could look straight up and see stars, regardless if was day or night, and you looked through it every exact revolution of the earth, the stars would stay pretty much in the same place all year.
Have you actually ever tried this? Because, you know... it doesn't actually work. Again, if your model doesn't exhibit retrograde motion as it is currently observed, then your model is wrong. If the model doesn't fit the observable facts, you're back to the drawing board on the model. This is how science works, friend.
Everything, to you, is at the center. Infinite is more a concept that a reality because it does not relate to us on a practical level. Your own universe is centered on you. Any other way of thinking of it is of no use to you.
Originally posted by Truth_Hz
Assuming the universe is infinite would that not mean that everything is at the exact centre of the universe?
Ok, search engined it.
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by jmdewey60
sigh - all onserved comets orbit the sun - why do they do this if the sun has near zero mass as you claim
google " sun grazers "
it is your claim that the earth is at the centre of your alleged geo-system - so explain why comets dont orbit the earth - its a simple question
you claim every other body in your allehed geosystem orbits the earth - why not comets ?
en.wikipedia.org...
This comet was found to have passed just 200,000 km (0.0013 AU) above the sun's surface, equivalent to about half the distance between the Earth and the Moon.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
en.wikipedia.org...
This comet was found to have passed just 200,000 km (0.0013 AU) above the sun's surface, equivalent to about half the distance between the Earth and the Moon.
If the sun had mass, then don't you think it would pull something so close, right into it, instead of just letting it go on it's way? The sun gives off radiation and particles, and makes things like comets observable, but that does not necessarily mean they cause them. If you know otherwise, go ahead and present your evidence.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Whether smokestacks work or not is beside the point. OK, make it a nice radio astronomy antenna array, where you can make a fix on a particular spot so far away that there is no discernible movement, and you designate it as " a fixed location". Then, every time that fixed location is directly centered in your antenna array, which always stays pointed in one direction, you put the location of Mars on a graph. What I am saying is that if done this way, Mars would not retrograde on your graph. Retrograde is caused by the speeding up and slowing down of Mars. When compared to a zodiac moving, sometimes it beats the zodiac, and sometimes it falls behind. Mars does not turn around and go back, the earth goes into a different position in relationship to the sun, causing your observation point to change its angle. This phenomenon happens, whether the earth orbits the sun, or the sun orbits the earth, it does not matter which one it is, it has to do with an uneven orbit of Mars that causes it to slow down and speed up.
I didn't make up the Mars speed thing. I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge, not being an astronomer. I read that at an astronomy website while searching around for information to be able to ague one way or the other on the subject. It said it right on the site; the retrograde of Mars is caused by it slowing down on part of its orbit, in turn caused by the shape of that orbit. So I am just going with accepted scientific fact.
show explicitly how the model you've presented would result in retrograde motion of Mars being observed from Earth. And, since you've now brought it up, show proof that the velocity of Mars changes significantly enough to results in the observance of retrograde motion.
That's a real persuasive argument, resorting to personal attacks. (sarcasm)
Originally posted by iterationzero
It's called conservation of energy and angular momentum. Seriously, your understanding of even the basic concepts of physics is really woeful.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
I didn't make up the Mars speed thing. I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge, not being an astronomer. I read that at an astronomy website while searching around for information to be able to ague one way or the other on the subject. It said it right on the site; the retrograde of Mars is caused by it slowing down on part of its orbit, in turn caused by the shape of that orbit. So I am just going with accepted scientific fact.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
That's a real persuasive argument, resorting to personal attacks. (sarcasm)
Originally posted by iterationzero
It's called conservation of energy and angular momentum. Seriously, your understanding of even the basic concepts of physics is really woeful.
So, a tiny little object made from a snowball has a speed high enough to give it more mass than the Sun?
Use your physics skills to formulate that for me, you know, to help my understanding.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
I didn't make up the Mars speed thing. I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge, not being an astronomer. I read that at an astronomy website while searching around for information to be able to ague one way or the other on the subject. It said it right on the site; the retrograde of Mars is caused by it slowing down on part of its orbit, in turn caused by the shape of that orbit. So I am just going with accepted scientific fact.
As for models, I am not a 3D animator. I make models for video games but they are buildings that don't move. I spent four days familiarizing myself with an animation program to learn how to make a reasonable representation of the relationship between the sun's orbit and Mars' orbit. A lot of what I did was hand placing the objects and letting the program interpolate the movement between those positions. There is another way to make a orbit for mars in that program, which is to make an algorithm that would determine its position at different times. I don't know what that would be or how to determine what it should be.
I did experiment trying to create a retrograde and what I found out is that you can not, either way, geo or helio centric, if Mars is going at a constant speed, which is as far as I got with my abilities with that program.
Fell free to spend some time with it. I used Art of Illusion because it is free. It's a little bit of a pain to use if you are not already well acquainted with animation. I am busy making static objects and may go back at some time to mess around with animation for a video game when I get to that point.
As for smokestacks, that is not something I made up either, and learned it in science class back in pre-Apollo days, so go talk to my teacher if she is still around.
Yes, that's one way to describe it. My video was meant to make something unthinkable, thinkable, by seeing it.
Then you're admitting the video you presented is inaccurate, so you can't really use it to back up your model (I mean "model" in the sense of a hypothetical framework) without the math.
Thanks for making that animation. This is the sort of effort I was hoping to get by making this thread.
I fired up Stellarium(www.stellarium.org...), centered the view on mars and started going forward in time in jumps of 7 days until I found what I was looking for.
At times like that, in my personal experience, I got as far as thinking, "Oh, this is getting serious!" There was some sort of intervention of an angelic nature in those times, despite not having made what you would normally think of as a prayer. The fact is that everyone dies, and the question is where do you go after that. The Old Testament says you go to your ancestors. A lot of other cultures believe the same thing.
But ive had many times a situation in my life were i know someone was watching over me'
But this is exactly the opposite of what happens in the real world. Ever hear of "conservation of angular momentum"?
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Where the orbit is smaller, the planet slows down because it has less ground to cover to go through the same degrees in respect to the center.
when the distance to the center of rotation increases the angular velocity goes down
Here is a video of a home demonstration (actually it looks like a high school lab) you can do to prove to yourself you have it exactly backwards, note when the objects are closer, the rotation speeds up.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Where the orbit is smaller, the planet slows down
I do seem to remember that, now that you mention it. A diagram on the blackboard at school, where an imaginary string sweeps across the circle, or whatever, and given an equal amount of time, the area inside the portion of the circle that was swept is equal to all the other areas that were swept in that same amount of time. So I probably need to change the timing on my representation of Mars.
it's the area swept out by the rotation per unit time
Originally posted by MacAnkka