The incredible satisfaction of watching theorists dither around with
Flamsteed erroneous proof that axial rotation was equivalent to
celestial sphere geometry by way of the return of a star in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds.How was poor Isaac to know that within a few
centuries they would have not only adopted celestial sphere geometry
but morphed axial rotation to the celestial sphere to orbital motion to
Wasting your lives sure while the magnificent celestial arena is before
you,when even dynamicists can work with avenues such as updated
terrestrial dynamics of the molten/flexible interior as a safe way to
approach the motions of the Earth and from there into solar system
structure and motion.
Look at you George,the authority of the newsgroup when a few years back
you were learning basic astronomical material.
George Dishman wrote:
> GSS wrote:
> > Hence it should be clear that "using the terms barycentric,
> > galactocentric or geocentric" by itself is not sufficient (because it
> > refers only to the origin of the reference system), we must also
> > specify (or fix) the directions of the coordinate axes which is done
> > through ICRF.
> Indeed, I was taking the use of the ICRF for rotation
> as agreed and merely clarifying the location of the
> origin. The page I read on the ICRF dodn't mention
> the use of the solar system barycentre though the
> ICRS page does.
> > Finally therefore let us agree that the celestial reference frames
> > ICRS, ICRF and SSBF refer to the one and the same reference frame and
> > we need not waste any more time on this issue. Further, whenever we
> > refer to the galactocentric or geocentric celestial reference frames it
> > will imply the reference frames with their origins at galactic center
> > or geocenter respectively and their coordinate axis directions
> > 'parallel' to those of ICRS.
> That's exactly what I intended to clear up and I am
> happy to agree that. My original one-line comment
> was just that we must be careful not to confuse the
> geocentric frame with the barycentric frame even
> though both fix rotation by setting the axes parallel
> to the ICRF since you show point A (which must
> correspond the the DSN station when discussing
> Pioneer) as moving at V1.
> Can we return to the main discussion now? My point
> remains that your suggested experiment is an
> implementation of the Michelson Moreley experiment.