A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Yes, I said that. If we see in real time, that means Io's orbit speeds up when it gets closer to Earth and slows down when it moves away (for no apparent reason), at the same time the shape of the orbit doesn't change, which is what violates conservation of angular momentum. That the speed changes during a single orbital period when the orbit isn't a circle is something completely different and is described accurately by the known laws of gravity.

But I guess you have no idea what any of this means.

That the speed changes during a single orbital period, in my estimation, would have an effect on what we see from Earth or from a telescope.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That the speed changes during a single orbital period, in my estimation, would have an effect on what we see from Earth or from a telescope.

Tell us more, professor!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Tell us more, professor!

If the orbit is elliptical, then it is not surprising that Roemer could have calculated a delay in the time he saw Io appear if it was during the time that Io was the furthest from Jupiter.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the orbit is elliptical, then it is not surprising that Roemer could have calculated a delay in the time he saw Io appear if it was during the time that Io was the furthest from Jupiter.

Wait, are you telling me that elliptical orbits have changing orbital periods? Fascinating!

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That the speed changes during a single orbital period, in my estimation, would have an effect on what we see from Earth or from a telescope.

I guessed right.

Look, this is what a non-circular elliptical orbit looks like:

A planet's elliptical orbit around a star -...

This one explains Kepler's laws:

Understanding Kepler's 3 Laws and Orbits - YouTube

Again, this is not what we're talking about here. If we saw in real time there would be an overall speedup inconsistent with the laws of physics.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the orbit is elliptical, then it is not surprising that Roemer could have calculated a delay in the time he saw Io appear if it was during the time that Io was the furthest from Jupiter.

By the time Roemer calculated the speed of light the orbits of the moons of Jupiter were well documented and the timing of the events were known to a very high precision. In fact the timing of the orbits of the moons of Jupiter can be used to accurately pinpoint the position of an observer on Earth. Where the moon was in it's orbit would have been taken into account in the observations, including the delay due to the finite speed of light. All this has been factored into the timing of the observations and there is no discrepancy due to the difference in delayed seeing and instant vision, we see in delayed time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

I guessed right.

Look, this is what a non-circular elliptical orbit looks like:

This one explains Kepler's laws:

Again, this is not what we're talking about here. If we saw in real time there would be an overall speedup inconsistent with the laws of physics.

Is it not true that different seasons produce different gravitational forces acting upon the moving body, which either slows it down or speeds it up slightly? The orbit during those seasons are consistent. Maybe you can help clarify this.

Orbital period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is it not true that different seasons produce different gravitational forces acting upon the moving body, which either slows it down or speeds it up slightly? The orbit during those seasons are consistent. Maybe you can help clarify this.

Orbital period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seasons? Seasons are caused by the tilt of a planet's axis. I'm not sure what you mean.

Io is a moon, it orbits Jupiter every 1.7 days.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is it not true that different seasons produce different gravitational forces acting upon the moving body, which either slows it down or speeds it up slightly? The orbit during those seasons are consistent. Maybe you can help clarify this.

Orbital period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The seasons have no effect on the orbit of a body, it is the mass of the objects and their distance from center to center. While it is true that the mass of an object can increase through accretion, and in the early solar system this is how the planets and Sun were formed, there is very little accretion happening now, and certainly not enough to effect the orbits of the moons or planets. Seasons do not affect the mass of a body and therefore do not affect the orbits.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is it not true that different seasons produce different gravitational forces acting upon the moving body, which either slows it down or speeds it up slightly?

Yes, it is a well-known fact that gravity doubles during winter, which is why polar bears hibernate until summer.

When will you be answering my questions, Peacegirl? Now that you've had time to mentally reset, what's your present excuse for evasion?

[thedoc]

You do understand that it is summer in the southern hemisphere, even though it is winter in the northern hemisphere. The seasons are opposite from north to south, so the effect of heat and cold balances out. And even though some birds and people go south for the winter that travel doesn't effect the total mass of the planet, it only redistributes it, some more than others. Someday when there are vacations on the Moon or other planets the mass of people on those vacations could effect the mass of the bodies in question but I don't believe it will be enough to affect the orbits of those bodies.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it is a well-known fact that gravity doubles during winter, which is why polar bears hibernate until summer.

When will you be answering my questions, Peacegirl? Now that you've had time to mentally reset, what's your present excuse for evasion?

Yes but it is warmer in the south, so the gravity is cut in half there and this might account for the Earths wobble on it's axis? So the seasons are the cause of the seasons, perfectly circular logic which would fit right into Lessans book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it is a well-known fact that gravity doubles during winter, which is why polar bears hibernate until summer.

When will you be answering my questions, Peacegirl? Now that you've had time to mentally reset, what's your present excuse for evasion?

Damn, once again science trumps fiction.

Hibernating and Denning | Polar Bears International

"Hibernation. With the exception of pregnant females, polar bears do not overwinter in dens like brown and black bears. Instead adult male polar bears and non-pregnant females remain active throughout the year.

Pregnant female polar bears dig a snow den, give birth, and emerge three months later. During this time, they live off their fat reserves. But they don't hibernate in the strict sense of the word."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it is a well-known fact that gravity doubles during winter, which is why polar bears hibernate until summer.

When will you be answering my questions, Peacegirl? Now that you've had time to mentally reset, what's your present excuse for evasion?

When will you learn that I am not resetting anything? Are you so committed to your beliefs that you can't even consider an alternate explanation if there is a valid reason? And if you are so sure Lessans was wrong, why are you still here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes but it is warmer in the south, so the gravity is cut in half there and this might account for the Earths wobble on it's axis? So the seasons are the cause of the seasons, perfectly circular logic which would fit right into Lessans book.

Stop with the ignorance Einstein wannabe. You're not smart enough to figure this out so stop pretending doc.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OMG Spacemonkey, when will you learn that I am not resetting anything? There is no rebooting here. Are you that committed to your beliefs that you can't even consider alternatives to the present day theory? That's exactly what's going on, and I can't win. I'm not nuts which people presume me to be. This is bias, which is the very thing science is so against. Go figure.

Spacemonkey, like most others here base what they believe on the evidence for that belief. If you want us to consider other theories, then present the testable, falsifiable, evidence that we can consider. Just making a claim or saying "something else is going on" is meaningless nonsense without evidence. Even a logical idea is meaningless without some facts to back it up, and neither you nor Lessans have presented any actual testable facts.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop with the ignorance Einstein wannabe. You're not smart enough to figure this out so stop pretending doc.

LOL are you saying you actually believe this.

[peacegirl]

Characteristics of Pseudo Skeptics VS True Skeptics

https://www.facebook.com/15820220420...type=3&theater

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Characteristics of Pseudo Skeptics VS True Skeptics

https://www.facebook.com/15820220420...type=3&theater

The true skeptic describes almost everyone here, with one notable exception, you. The pseudo-skeptic describes you, except that you accuse the scientific community of holding to the 2 next to the last characteristics of the pseudo skeptic. You really are out of touch with reality.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is it not true that different seasons produce different gravitational forces acting upon the moving body, which either slows it down or speeds it up slightly? The orbit during those seasons are consistent. Maybe you can help clarify this.

Here is some clarification: no, it is not true that that different seasons produce different gravitational forces acting upon the moving body. That is something that you just made up.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Here is some clarification: no, it is not true that that different seasons produce different gravitational forces acting upon the moving body. That is something that you just made up.

Actually that is something that she just made up because she doesn't have the slightest understanding of what influences the orbit of a body and what does not. So she throws out these idiotic ideas just to say something, even if it makes her look more stupid that she already does look, when all it would take is just a little research to find out the minimum of what is known about orbital mechanics. But daddy didn't write it in the book, so she denies that there is any validity to it.

[Vivisectus]

Seasonal fundamental physical constants! I love it. When the sun smiles down on us again after a long frowny winter, the Planck's begin to lenghten, the electron's buzz with fresh charge as the Faradays begin to mole.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Seasonal fundamental physical constants! I love it. When the sun smiles down on us again after a long frowny winter, the Planck's begin to lenghten, the electron's buzz with fresh charge as the Faradays begin to mole.

I'm surprised at you Vivisectus not due to your disagreement (which you are entitled to), but by your sarcasm. How in the world could I ever discuss his other discovery with you regarding determinism when all you do is criticize? Nothing surprises me anymore. Please don't respond and tell me that I haven't followed through. There's no way we can have a meaningful conversation, as unfortunate as that is.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm surprised at you Vivisectus not due to your disagreement (which you are entitled to), but by your sarcasm.

Yes, how shocking someone should mock your belief in seasonal fundamental physical constants!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yes, how shocking someone should mock your belief in seasonal fundamental physical constants!

I don't know whether Kepler's law proves Roemer's observations. What I do know is that Lessans' observations need to be taken seriously as well (and I mean this in the most respectable way possible). All I can say is may best man win but you cannot know this unless you are a real skeptic, not a pseudo skeptic. I cannot dispute the apparent findings of Roemer unless you take a step back and stop attacking me as being a fraud. Maybe he was right (I don't deny that), or maybe there is another explanation. I don't know and I admit it. All I am asking is for an objective thought process which does not jump to conclusions. You have not done that Dragar.