TheRationalizer wrote:I repeat, how many days does it take for the Moon to do a 360 degree orbit around the Earth 12000 times?
I thought you challenged the Arabic but from your page at YouTube I understand that you are challenging the physics!
You get T from your frame of reference (which you never defined). In a local frame non-rotating with respect to stars T = 27.3 days. In a local frame non-rotating with respect to sun T = 29.5 days. In a local frame non-rotating with respect to moon T =
∞… however all these frames are non-inertial.
Speed =
12000 Lunar Orbits/Earth Day In this equation there is no TIME variable as you claim (except for Earth day of course). The length of the lunar orbit (L) depends on the frame of reference. In a local frame non-rotating with respect to stars L = 2πR. At your YouTube page you claimed that we need TIME to calculate the length of the lunar orbit however wormhole199 showed you that the units for time cancel out.
In a correctly defined frame of reference L is a function of R, not T:
L = 2πR
If you know the Time for an entire orbit (27.3 days) you can divide to get the velocity:
V = 2πR/T
However when calculating the lunar orbit Time cancels out:
L = VT = (2πR/T)T = 2πR (T/T) = 2πR (1)
So Time will cancel out and your claim is false.
You don’t seem to understand what this TIME actually is.
T is the time of an entire orbit in a well defined frame of reference. You still insist that T = 29.5 days which means you used the synodic system. The synodic system is a local frame non-rotating with respect to sun. However this frame is rotating with respect to distant stars. In rotating frames with respect to stars light
DOES NOT travel in a straight line, and the measured speed of light in these frames is
undefined (the distance travelled in one hour gives a different speed than distance travelled in two hours...).
Rotating frames with respect to stars by definition are non-inertial. Our sun is a star however in General Relativity the local inertial frames are actually frames non-rotating with respect to
distant stars; not non-rotating with respect to this star as you and the idiots around you claim.
So your claim is false and your comparison is invalid.The onus is still on you to:
1) Define your frame of reference.
2) Prove that it is a local inertial frame.
3) In this frame compare 12000 Lunar Orbits/Earth Day with 299792.458 km/sec.
When the geocentric frame is inertial the difference is 0.01%.
