Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[Jason Thompson]

Jason it was me that mentioned the Bus as it's my question to ask.  The answers need to be relative to my questions.

And your responses need to be relative to ours. I gave a plane example. Your response suggested you were disagreeing with my statement, since you said vehicle, not asking a follow-on question using a different set-up. If that's a misinterpretation then I apologise, but could you please clarify if you accept the answer given regarding the plane?

The moving bus was to further explore the Bat and Ball on elastic effect to understand gravity.  This question is in relation to the speeding up and slowing down of an elliptical orbit.

Which is not really understandable by using a bus or a ball on elastic. As was already explained previously, the entire solar system already moves in that eliptical orbit, and has always done so. The Sun is not dragging the planets and everything else around with it so it accelerates and pulls them all with it as it does so. Those other objects are already in that orbit and so accelerate along with the Sun. Their orbits around the Sun are superimposed upon that fundamental underlyiing motion. Everything that takes place within the solar system is a local perturbation of an overall motion.

[Icarus1]

People please.  My comments about Low Self Esteem weren't to be taken literally.  It was an assumption of how you all see me.  Adolescent in knowledge, childish, ignorant, arrogant, egotistical etc. etc. etc.

I will go thru my entire post and copy paste all references, but don't hold your breath.  It may take some time.

Jeeeeez you guys are putting a lot of time into this!

[AtomicDog]

Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.

[Icarus1]

Jason it was me that mentioned the Bus as it's my question to ask.  The answers need to be relative to my questions.

And your responses need to be relative to ours. I gave a plane example. Your response suggested you were disagreeing with my statement, since you said vehicle, not asking a follow-on question using a different set-up. If that's a misinterpretation then I apologise, but could you please clarify if you accept the answer given regarding the plane?

The moving bus was to further explore the Bat and Ball on elastic effect to understand gravity.  This question is in relation to the speeding up and slowing down of an elliptical orbit.

Which is not really understandable by using a bus or a ball on elastic. As was already explained previously, the entire solar system already moves in that eliptical orbit, and has always done so. The Sun is not dragging the planets and everything else around with it so it accelerates and pulls them all with it as it does so. Those other objects are already in that orbit and so accelerate along with the Sun. Their orbits around the Sun are superimposed upon that fundamental underlyiing motion. Everything that takes place within the solar system is a local perturbation of an overall motion.

I understand the accepted explanation of how the planets and solar system works.  I am re-thinking it to find relevance in the Vortex Vid. 

There is maybe one particular bit of info, that I already had, that clearly explains what I didn't know (to know something is to understand it) which is that the SS exists within it's own space.

[twik]

People please.  My comments about Low Self Esteem weren't to be taken literally.  It was an assumption of how you all see me.  Adolescent in knowledge, childish, ignorant, arrogant, egotistical etc. etc. etc.

I will go thru my entire post and copy paste all references, but don't hold your breath.  It may take some time.

Jeeeeez you guys are putting a lot of time into this!

Definitely odd. You come on a website dedicated to a particular topic, announce "I've got something controversial to say about this topic," and lots of people comment.

[Icarus1]

Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.

Haha you fool.

Where is my argument?  I had a question that a very small amount of you have answered politely and unassumingly.  Without criticism or defamatory insult.

My question on Apollo was answered when the posts came in.  My question was to question the images, and that has happened.  The answers were in days and days ago.

What did you come back for, Atomic Dog?  Has the Dallas re-run finished?

[Zakalwe]

Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.

He's only paid for a five minute arguement though.....

[Icarus1]

People please.  My comments about Low Self Esteem weren't to be taken literally.  It was an assumption of how you all see me.  Adolescent in knowledge, childish, ignorant, arrogant, egotistical etc. etc. etc.

I will go thru my entire post and copy paste all references, but don't hold your breath.  It may take some time.

Jeeeeez you guys are putting a lot of time into this!

You clearly have not read this entire thread and understood it.

I made no claims.  I asked if they were stars.  The rest is 25 pages of insults with rare instances of actual topical debate.

Even this is ridiculous.  We're talking more about me!!!

Definitely odd. You come on a website dedicated to a particular topic, announce "I've got something controversial to say about this topic," and lots of people comment.

[JayUtah]

There's no way you read this entire thread yet still come up with that conclusion!

Why do you have such a hard time with people who disagree with your opinion?  Maybe you're really not as put-upon as you think, and maybe people here have experience dealing with people who play the victim in order to try to save face.

I never NEVER argued or disagreed with ANY information put forward, on either the Apollo pics OR the Vortex vid.

Again, this is what I warned you about earlier.  It's one thing to say you have changed your mind after having been presented with the facts.  It's another thing to pretend you never held your prior position.

The first substantive answer you received to your question about Apollo photographs was that what you had mistaken for "stars" were really artifacts in the image.  You very clearly disputed that explanation, for example here and here.  But you sure wasted no time lighting into into several of the posters, calling them "trolls" and getting immediately down to the business of denigrating the forum and its respondents.  You want to be given the benefit of the doubt on these points, that you really are here just to ask questions and learn.  But you keep ignoring all the advice and removing all the doubt.  You need to do better.

[Icarus1]

Jason it was me that mentioned the Bus as it's my question to ask.  The answers need to be relative to my questions.

And your responses need to be relative to ours. I gave a plane example. Your response suggested you were disagreeing with my statement, since you said vehicle, not asking a follow-on question using a different set-up. If that's a misinterpretation then I apologise, but could you please clarify if you accept the answer given regarding the plane?

The moving bus was to further explore the Bat and Ball on elastic effect to understand gravity.  This question is in relation to the speeding up and slowing down of an elliptical orbit.

Which is not really understandable by using a bus or a ball on elastic. As was already explained previously, the entire solar system already moves in that eliptical orbit, and has always done so. The Sun is not dragging the planets and everything else around with it so it accelerates and pulls them all with it as it does so. Those other objects are already in that orbit and so accelerate along with the Sun. Their orbits around the Sun are superimposed upon that fundamental underlyiing motion. Everything that takes place within the solar system is a local perturbation of an overall motion.

I sincerely accept and appreciate your apology.  I can move on from it without discourse.

My understanding of the motion of the SS and the Galaxy is as it was before I even saw the Vortex Vid; that of the accepted view.

[Jason Thompson]

I understand the accepted explanation of how the planets and solar system works.  I am re-thinking it to find relevance in the Vortex Vid.

Then the question I have to ask is: why?

The 'accepted explanation' isn't just accepted as some form of dogma. It is the result of (literally) centuries or millennia of study. Is it perfect? No. Is it open to question? Absolutely, as are all scientific conclusions. Can it be overturned by a video on YouTube that demonstrates some fundamental misunderstandings of the mechanics of the system? Not at all.

Earlier on you took issue with the fact that one of the linked debunkings of the vortex video made a big deal of the fact that the angle of motion of the solar system was mis-represented, and suggested that picking holes in something so trivial wasn't really much of a debunking. The thing is, it is. If someone, anyone, wants to present an alternative explanation or model for the motion of the solar system then getting the representation and description of the observed motion is actually a basic requirement for their argument to be taken seriously.

In science it is insufficient to present an alternative to the accepted theory without a) showing that you have grasped the actual situation your alternative describes (whatever the possible reasons or underlying mechanism for it, the fact that the solar system moves in a particular way is an observed phenomenon) so that your model fits observation, and b) showing where it fits the observations at least as well as or better than the exisiting theory. Then you have a chance of being taken seriously. The vortex video failed to do that, hence its debunking by those who understand this requirement of getting the foundation right before trying to replace the current theory with a new one.

[Icarus1]

There's no way you read this entire thread yet still come up with that conclusion!

Why do you have such a hard time with people who disagree with your opinion?  Maybe you're really not as put-upon as you think, and maybe people here have experience dealing with people who play the victim in order to try to save face.

I never NEVER argued or disagreed with ANY information put forward, on either the Apollo pics OR the Vortex vid.

Again, this is what I warned you about earlier.  It's one thing to say you have changed your mind after having been presented with the facts.  It's another thing to pretend you never held your prior position.

The first substantive answer you received to your question about Apollo photographs was that what you had mistaken for "stars" were really artifacts in the image.  You very clearly disputed that explanation, for example here and here.  But you sure wasted no time lighting into into several of the posters, calling them "trolls" and getting immediately down to the business of denigrating the forum and its respondents.  You want to be given the benefit of the doubt on these points, that you really are here just to ask questions and learn.  But you keep ignoring all the advice and removing all the doubt.  You need to do better.

You've referenced 2 instances of here and here, but I don't know what you're bringing my attention to. 

As for Denigrating the forum and it's respondents; I asked a question and the first response was to correct my use of Grammar, which I consequntly retored to with dismissal of his offering, he then came back with an insult.

Did you miss that?

You do realise this is now a psychological debate and no longer about space?

[Jason Thompson]

I sincerely accept and appreciate your apology.  I can move on from it without discourse.

But you have still not answered my question. You accept the statement about how easy it is to move around in a cruising plane, and that a bath will drain in the same way there as on the ground?

My understanding of the motion of the SS and the Galaxy is as it was before I even saw the Vortex Vid; that of the accepted view.

You said to know something is to understand it in an earlier thread, but this is demonstrating that knowing and understanding are two different things. There is a difference between knowing what the motion is and understanding it, and the lack of understanding is presuambly what is motivating you to ask questions and suggest possible analogies such as ball on elastic or travel in a bus.

[JayUtah]

My question on Apollo was answered when the posts came in.  My question was to question the images, and that has happened.  The answers were in days and days ago.

And you've expended considerable energy both then and now trying to convince yourself (and others, unsuccessfully) that in that process you've somehow been horribly victimized.  Gaslighting really doesn't work around here, Icarus1.

Regarding orbits, ka9q has given you a key bit of understanding in how the energy of orbits work.  An orbit has constant energy, but simply trades it back and forth between two forms.  While that's correct from a physics standpoint, it doesn't usually offer a helpful way of visualizing how orbits maintain a particular shape.

A tidbit from earlier in the discussion may help.  Instead of thinking of a tiny object orbiting a relatively massive object, think of two relatively same-sized objects.  One can be put in orbit around the other according to the same physics, but it will be more apparent that instead of one orbiting the other, the bodies orbit a common center.  When the two bodies have roughly the same mass, that common center will lie somewhere between them.  This is true for a planet and our sun as well, except that because of the much larger mass of the Sun, that common center lies not very far from the geometric center of the Sun, so it looks like the Sun is a sort of gravitational "master" and the planet is a sort of "slave" and that the Sun will drag planets along with it.

The noodle-baker comes from understanding that the reckoning of a two-body orbital system as it moves along some other path is via that common center, not either of the two bodies.  The velocity state of, say, the Earth-Moon system along its orbit around the Sun is most properly reckoned from the common center of that system, which lies somewhere along the line connecting the geometric center of the Earth with the geometric center of the Moon, but obviously within the boundaries of Earth's surface.  Does this help visualize better how systems of orbits work?

[Icarus1]

I understand the accepted explanation of how the planets and solar system works.  I am re-thinking it to find relevance in the Vortex Vid.

Then the question I have to ask is: why?

The 'accepted explanation' isn't just accepted as some form of dogma. It is the result of (literally) centuries or millennia of study. Is it perfect? No. Is it open to question? Absolutely, as are all scientific conclusions. Can it be overturned by a video on YouTube that demonstrates some fundamental misunderstandings of the mechanics of the system? Not at all.

Earlier on you took issue with the fact that one of the linked debunkings of the vortex video made a big deal of the fact that the angle of motion of the solar system was mis-represented, and suggested that picking holes in something so trivial wasn't really much of a debunking. The thing is, it is. If someone, anyone, wants to present an alternative explanation or model for the motion of the solar system then getting the representation and description of the observed motion is actually a basic requirement for their argument to be taken seriously.

In science it is insufficient to present an alternative to the accepted theory without a) showing that you have grasped the actual situation your alternative describes (whatever the possible reasons or underlying mechanism for it, the fact that the solar system moves in a particular way is an observed phenomenon) so that your model fits observation, and b) showing where it fits the observations at least as well as or better than the exisiting theory. Then you have a chance of being taken seriously. The vortex video failed to do that, hence its debunking by those who understand this requirement of getting the foundation right before trying to replace the current theory with a new one.

Agreed, and I brought up the question to re-discover it and prove/disprove/understand!

I think the main problem is I AM NOT A SCIENTIST, but I am an artist.  As a psychological study, I have more questions than answers, but I rarely rely on Facts! or things that have become a Fixed Knowledge.  I'm sure it's frustrating.  I cam here for people such as yourself to present answers to my questions.  Some of you have done a great job, others are simply Trolling my posts and jumping in.  It would take a very keen and observant mind to read this entire post and WANT to UNDERSTAND where I am coming from.

It's already been suggested that I have been received as a Conspiracy Theorist, and I have been met with the hostility of a well worn, observed systemic approach, deserving of such a person.