Living on the Moon would be challenging, to say the least. A total of twelve Apollo moon-walkers between 1969 and 1972 spent a cumulative 80 hours walking around on the surface of the moon. Obviously, they had to bring their own food, water, and air to breathe.
NASA engineers did a good job of preparing the Apollo astronauts for what would be a very non-Earth-like experience. But the moon-walkers were there for only one to three days on each of the lunar landing missions, and were focused on getting historic stuff done as quickly as possible before coming home.
Let’s say you were traveling to an existing moon base as a tourist, with enough food, water, and air to spend a month there, and a round-trip ticket to get there and back home. What are some of the differences you would experience living on the Moon compared to Earth?
1) No atmosphere, no weather, no water, no life
One of the most obvious differences with Earth is that the moon has no atmosphere. No atmosphere means no blue sky, no air to breathe, no weather, and no life. Obviously, you could not simply “go outside”; you would have to have a pressurized space suit. And when you did go outside, there would be no trees, lakes, grass… just a barren grey desert with craters, rocks, and rolling hills.
Walking around near the South Pole (a likely choice for a moon base, see below) would be treacherous because with the sun low on the horizon, and no atmosphere-scattered sunlight to help illuminate the landscape, any low spots would be almost totally black — some might look like bottomless holes. Venturing into larger craters would require artificial lighting.
2) Gravity: If you weigh 200 lbs on Earth, on the Moon you only weigh 33 lbs
As the Apollo astronauts found out, walking around with only 1/6 of Earth gravity takes some getting used to. They developed a “bunny hop” method of moving around that seemed to help keep them from falling over. Astronaut Harrison Schmitt (the last man to walk on the moon) compared it to walking on a giant trampoline. Without much gravity, your muscles would weaken and you would have to have a daily exercise plan to keep from becoming a couch potato.
3) Good luck sleeping, daytime on the moon lasts for 2 weeks
The moon takes 29.5 Earth days to rotate, so that means two weeks of daylight followed by two weeks of darkness for almost everywhere on the moon. To avoid the problem of a moon base being plunged into darkness for 14 days at a time, with temperatures falling to 280 deg. F below zero, a moon base would probably be located near the South Pole, where there are locations that are almost always sunlit, and temperatures remain more moderate. If that is where you spent your month, the sun would hug the horizon, and it would circle around you during your 1-month stay. You would probably still use a 24-hour (Earth time) clock to maintain a healthy circadian rhythm.
4) The day-night temperature range is over 450 deg. F
Because the lunar surface is relatively dark (about the same reflectivity as the open ocean), and because there are no clouds or weather to cool the surface, daytime temperatures soar to 250 deg. F at the lunar equator. The six Apollo missions were planned so that the sun would not be very high in the sky to limit how hot the astronauts and lunar module would get.
Just as dangerous is the fall of lunar temperatures to -208 deg. F at during the two-week long lunar night. This is probably too large of a temperature range for humans to cope with in terms of heating and cooling of buildings and spacesuits, which is partly why many believe a weakly sunlit site near the South Pole would make the best place for a permanent lunar outpost. Temperatures at the South Pole on solar-illuminated crater ridges hover around 32 deg. F (0 deg. C), and the sun shines for over 90% of the year at some higher elevation locations:
5) The lunar sky is always black, with almost no daytime stars
With no atmosphere, the sky would always appear black, even when the sun is shining. But because the sun shining on the moon surface produces considerable light, all but the brightest stars would not be visible during the daytime. It’s the same reason you cannot see stars next to the full moon.
The Apollo moonwalkers generally did not see stars, and neither do astronauts on the International Space Station when they are on the sunlit side of the Earth. Gene Cernan (Apollo 17) said he could see a few stars if he stood in the shadow of the Lunar Module to reduce the amount of sunlight being reflected from the lunar surface.
At night, though, the stars would be spectacular. I suspect at the South Pole, many more stars would be visible since the landscape would be only weakly illuminated by the sun, and your eyes would adapt to the twilight-like brightness.
6) The view of Earth would be amazing
Since the Earth is 3.7 times larger than the moon, it covers over 15 times as much of the sky as does the moon. This combined with the fact that the Earth is colorful would make the Earth a spectacular sight. A person with reasonably good eyesight would be able to identify the continents. You can get a good idea of the dramatic difference between how the Earth and moon look from this DSCOVR satellite image of the moon transiting the Earth:
The appearance of the Earth rising above the moon’s limb as Apollo-11 orbited the moon was greeted with amazement by the astronauts as they scrambled to change from black & white to color film to capture the sight.
Furthermore, since the Earth rotates over 24 hours, you would get to see different sides of the Earth, rather than just one side of the moon we are limited to here on Earth. There would be phases of illumination throughout the month, just like we see of the moon, but they would be reversed. A “full Earth” would occur during the “new moon” on Earth, while a “new Earth” from the moon would occur during the “full moon” here on Earth. Also, when there is a lunar eclipse on the Earth there would be a solar eclipse on the moon, and when there is a solar eclipse on the Earth, there would be an “Earth eclipse”, with the shadow of the moon falling on a portion of the Earth:
7) The Earth is always in the same part of the lunar sky
Because the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth, the Earth’s position in the lunar sky would always remain the same (or nearly so) as seen from the moon’s surface. There would be no Earthrise or Earthset the way we have moonrise and moonset. If you were near the moon’s South Pole (where sunlit locations stay relatively cool) the Earth would dramatically hang just above the horizon in one spot, while the sun slowly travels around the horizon over the course of one month. This would make the whole Earth viewing experience even more breathtaking.
8) Meteors : Bring your Kevlar vest
The moon is constantly being bombarded by tiny micrometeors. Rarely, one large enough to be seen from Earth hits the moon, such as this one captured by accident by an astrophotographer while photographing the lunar eclipse on January 20, 2019:
Without an atmosphere to slow the meteors down and burn up all but the largest of them, they hit the moon surface at astonishing speeds. For comparison, a bullet fired by a 30 caliber rifle travels close to 2,000 mph as it leaves the muzzle. Now imagine a small meteor travelling at 45,000 to 196,000 mph. A BB-sized meteor travelling at 100,000 mph would hit your space suit with the energy of 90 30 caliber rifle bullets slugs fired at point-blank range. All of that energy would be concentrated like a knife point in the tiny BB-size spot. Luckily, the probability of being hit by a meteor of even that small size is believed to be vanishingly low. But the possibility would always be in the back of your mind. The moon-walkers (like space-walkers) wore suits with protection against very tiny micrometeors; they just had to hope there weren’t any larger ones with their name on it.
9) Smelly, messy moon dust
The Apollo moon-walkers found that the lunar soil tended to cling to everything, and it has an odor somewhat like gunpowder or wet sand. Very fine and abrasive (like tiny shards of glass), it would probably present a long-term health risk in the pressurized buildings of a lunar base, and much effort would go into cleaning it off of space suits and equipment brought in from outside and filtering it from the air.
I’m sure there are other unusual aspects of living on the moon I haven’t thought of. Just the daily routines of life would be difficult, and much effort would be expended on activities necessary to sustain life: food, recycling of water, waste disposal, oxygen generation and removal of excess carbon dioxide, energy generation and storage, etc. Here I’ve assumed all of that has already been taken care of for your month of leisurely lunar living.
Interesting Roy, but the Moon missions were nearly certainly faked. Man has never left low Earth orbit and still won’t 50 years later, because they haven’t figured out how to safely get through the radiation belt.
which starts only about 1000 miles up. Despite claimed amounts, the radiation levels are lethal to humans. When NASA sent up an Orion (unmanned) test flight in 2014 into the radiation belt and back, they were asked what the measured radiation levels were, and they said that information was classified. Why would something like that be classified? I think the answer is obvious.
Look, like most people I assumed the Moon missions really happened until I spent some time critically examining all the evidence, logic and behavior of those involved. I came to conclusion fairy quickly that they were nearly certainly faked.
Apropos of nothing, tin foil hats are on sale on Aisle 13.
MR,
Stay away from isle 13! Those tin foil hats are really a cunning ploy by Deep Government to steal your brainwaves, and turn you into a mindless automaton!
Phew! I hope I got there in time!
Cheers.
Twat.
@RW: Are you serious?! A little light Wikipedia reading may clear things up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Implications_for_space_travel
The utterly maddening thing these days is how hard it is to distinguish when someone is being serious or is doing subtle satire lampooning the sheer idiocy of the current anti-science crowd.
This information on wiki about the radiation levels is not accurate. I don’t know how high the levels are, but they’re lethal. Even for only a short time through them. This is why no one else, in any country, anywhere in the entire world has ever even attempted to go through the Van Allen belts. In now over 50 years.
Sometime in the early 1990s, the Space Shuttle when to its highest altitude. I think it was only about 400 miles up. The radiation levels were so intense they penetrated the shuttle, the astronauts suits, and they could see ‘sparks’ in their eyes with their eyes closed. They turned around and came back down to a much lower altitude right away. This was only about 400 miles up. The main portion of the belt doesn’t even start till about 1000 miles up, so they weren’t even fully in it yet.
All of this can be summed up by (I forget where and by who, but not that long ago) when two Russian astronauts were asked why Russia never went to the Moon. The immediate response from one of them was: “Can’t get through the radiation belt…you know-a we don’t-a-have a Hollywood (and they looked at each other and chuckled)” They know it was faked.
‘This information on wiki about the radiation levels is not accurate. I dont know how high the levels are, but theyre lethal.’
Then I guess I wonder how YOU know they are lethal, if you don’t know the levels, and they are classified?
It can be logically deduced by the fact that no one will go through it, even 50 years after Apollo allegedly did (and with what would have been zero problems or issues, had they actually gone through it).
Think about it. If the Moon missions really did happen, it would have proved that going trough the VA Belts was no problem at all since none of the many astronauts who allegedly went through it ever suffered even the slightest from radiation sickness or poison. And I just found out recently a few of them actually allegedly went to the Moon more than once.
Yet, no one anywhere, in any country, no matter how advanced their space program, to this day, over 50 years later, will go through it (or has ever attempted to go through it). Or even into it briefly. They just flat out will not do it.
Forget that no one has repeated the Moon missions in over 50 years. That’s highly suspect enough and should be raising red flags. No one has even attempted the first leg of the mission, which is the go through the Van Allen belts, which are just above the Earth.
I suppose you’ll find a way to dismiss the pictures from the recent lunar orbiter of the landing sites, with left behind landers, rovers, and burned spots.
Also the Wiki page indicated the Apollo trajectory took them through the gaps in the inner belt.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/47833278@N02/with/17229073722/
Yes, of course, I’ve seen those. They’re pathetically fake looking. I would think they ought to be able to fake them better than that for crying out loud. I mean really, it’s sad how badly faked they are.
And why so far away? With such little detail and so blurry? The Moon has no atmosphere, yet you can hardly see anything in those pictures. Yet satellites on Earth much higher up through the entire atmosphere can get so much detail on small objects. They ought to be able to easily get close up crystal clear shots of everything in lots of detail, yet we never see anything like that. It’s because there’s nothing there and viewed too close up, faked CGI would be too easy to see as such.
As expected.
What about ‘Also the Wiki page indicated the Apollo trajectory took them through the gaps in the inner belt.’
That seems feasible.
Originally from here:
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/
The moon landings were most certainly real, although some of the footage may have been faked or augmented in some ways.
I did consider the possibility that the footage and photos were faked, but that they still went to Moon.
If NASA didn’t go to the moon, the soviets would know it, and would rat the nasa out, that is a 100% proof that nasa did go to the moon. But of course, there is no way to independently verify moon photos, and there are some arguments some of those may be faked, such as lack of radiation damage etc.
Wow! I looked at the title to this article and KNEW this would bring out all the kooks.
Yes, RW. The moon landings were faked. Bigfoot is real. Elvis faked his own death. 9/11 was an inside job. Got it.
Japan’s JAXA spacecraft Selene detected the halo around the Apollo 15 landing site. Of course, Japan is in on the hoax as well. NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) captured images of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites, and the “moon buggy” tracks can be seen, equipment, as well as the astronauts foot paths. Of course, this is fake too and NASA is continuing the hoax.
No matter how much evidence is presented, conspiracy nutjobs will insist otherwise because they have a screw loose in their head.
Bigfoot is likely real (I’ve never seen one), don’t know anything about Elvis, and — based on what I’ve seen — I’m not convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.
Nice one HGS!
There are still some people convinced that the Earth is flat!
RW, I was one of those who did the ACTUAL TRACKING of those Apollo missions. You are so wrong it is almost crazy to respond to your ignorance. Please read more with an open mind.
Pointing a radar antenna at an object in space in both sending and receiving modes, and tracking those X, Y and Z components, BTW Z is distance, and losing communications as they went around the MOON becomes pretty obvious.
Please note the receiving mode. Yes in constant two way communication until they disappeared behind the moon.
Could you explain how the tens of thousands involved were duped by those pesky radiation belts? Or perhaps you could explain that pesky communications delay due to the radiation belts.
Next I expect you to deny the Mars landings. How could those satellites pass through those radiation belts.
Corev,
How much did you get paid to be in on the conspiracy? I heard about your secret studio in Area 51.
Stephen Anderson asks: “How much did you get paid to be in on the conspiracy? I heard about your secret studio in Area 51.”, I hope tongue in cheek. If not how deluded is he?
His implication would be we ALL of us are still getting paid not to write out memoirs about their false beliefs. 😉
RW, we all know the 1969 moon mission was faked.
That’s old news.
However, it was faked only due to NASA budget cuts.
In a brilliant effort to raise money privately for a real moon mission, NASA faked the “first” moon mission in Hollywood studios, where people thought a “science fiction movie” was being made … and then NASA raised a lot of money by selling small vials of fake moon dust for $19.95 each, which was a lot of money in 1969 and 1970
All the suckers who thought they were getting authentic moon dust actually are proud owners of ordinary dust collected by Mrs. McGillicutty, a custodian who worked for NASA at the time !
And a result of the dust sales, NASA raised enough money for five real flights that landed men on the moon, which no one talks about any more.
Source: The internet.
I saw apollo 10 firing its rockets to leave earth orbit. The exhaust covered half the sky. If they were not leaving earth orbit, where exactly were they going, do tell.
Cool!
Was that from the ground in US?
You say “nearly certainly faked.” Nope. There were thousands of people involved with making the spacecraft, rockets, space suits, radio equipment and rudimentary (by today’s standards) computers they used and other equipment used. The moon landings were remarkable human achievements that should be celebrated and acknowledged as such. That so many were undertaken successfully speaks to the dedication and genius of the teams of scientists and engineers NASA assembled. And the did it with slide rules.
Deny it if you must but you join a select list of deniers of the Holocaust, flat Earthers and people who think Trump colluded with the Russians to win in 2016.
Nice article, Roy.
Will any Moon Landing Hoaxers come out of the woodwork??
In Sci Fi we often have Moon or planetary bases, particularly in the future after the Earth is overpopulated or trashed.
It seems like they think is inevitable, but as you point out, it would be super difficult!
Earth-based environmental enclosures, even underground, on or under the ocean, or in Antarctica, seem more likely to come first, in a future with a damaged Earth.
Oh I see, RW already did come out of the woodwork!
(Sorry for the late response, I mostly composed this a few days ago, but didn’t finish ’til now.)
Hi Nate, since your post is the first to not involve crazy conspiracy theories, it wins.
>In Sci Fi we often have Moon or planetary bases, particularly in the future after the Earth is overpopulated or trashed.
>
>It seems like they think is inevitable, but as you point out, it would be super difficult!
I respectfully disagree, and here’s my rebuttal to all of Dr. Spencer’s negative points:
(spoiler: for the most part, simply live underground)
>1) No atmosphere, no weather, no water, no life
This isn’t an issue when living underground. The underground habitat can be as nice as one can imagine. What’s required is effectively unlimited, “free” energy, which allows cheaply bringing materials from elsewhere in the Solar System. BTW, “no water” is incorrect, there is both free water at the poles, and water trapped in minerals which can be extracted.
Life will become present in the arbitrarily large underground farms, parks, and terrariums…all running on the Earth’s 24-hour diurnal cycle.
Abundant energy will be available both as undiluted sunlight, and no-worry nuclear power.
>2) Gravity: If you weigh 200 lbs on Earth, on the Moon you only weigh 33 lbs
This is probably the most substantive issue. Due to gross negligence by NASA, we have no idea what the minimum gravitational requirement is for sustained human life. It seems likely 1/6 G isn’t enough. (Note: It also seems likely that 1/3 G isn’t enough, either – that’s Mars gravity.)
If human physiology requires more, it may be that lunar settlers will have to sleep and/or exercise in centrifugal environments.
All that said, the low lunar gravity is really the most novel and likely “fun” aspect of lunar life. The astronauts never experienced much mobility without wearing a spacesuit. In a habitat with (really!) large rooms, it would enable sports and other activities that are hard to imagine today.
>3) Good luck sleeping, daytime on the moon lasts for 2 weeks
This is not an issue at all, given underground living. Humans on the Moon will live using the regular, terrestrial 24-hour day.
It’s worth mentioning, for those that might miss the “outside”, that high resolution displays are at the point where they provide a truly “windowlike” experience. That’s aside from AR/VR, which will soon be enabling Earthdwellers to experience a wide range of other places, and potentially the other way as well.
>4) The day-night temperature range is over 450 deg. F
Just a couple of meters below the surface, the temperature range is almost completely stable. It seems that something like 2-5 meters underground for the top level of habitat would be optimum. The entire range of concerns is: radiation, meteorites, and thermal issues. Underground habitats address every one of them.
By the way, for the “pro Mars” crowd – almost nothing is different about living on Mars, except the length of the diurnal cycle. Yes, you’d weigh twice as much, but still only 1/3 of Earth normal. The concerns about temperature extremes, radiation, meteorites, and environmental contamination (dust etc.) are all just about the same. Underground living is still the only sane path.
The one thing that Mars has going for it over the Moon is carbon. The Moon doesn’t seem to have any, so it’ll have to be imported. Asteroids? Other moons? Nuclear spacecraft will help a lot!
>8) Meteors : Bring your Kevlar vest
Ah, the safety of a few meters of rock overhead! Regular living quarters should be a few levels further down…
It is true that going outside on the Moon would have that extra little element of suspense – but then there won’t be poisonous critters, critters that might eat you, storms, lightning, wind or any of the other myriad hazards we take for granted every day. Oh, and by the way you can still get flattened by a meteorite on the Earth’s surface too.
I will say that 90x the energy of a 30 cal bullet is something. I guess about the same as getting hit by an Apache cannon round…
>9) Smelly, messy moon dust
This is another real issue, and another reason to leave the lavish underground habitat as little as possible…
Once into the regolith, the vast majority of the habitat would be like any other tunnel in rock. Presumably it’d be sealed with some sort of paint/epoxy. Another interesting aspect are lava tunnels, some of which have been identified. These may be very low cost, very large, habitat candidates.
https://www.universetoday.com/138261/lava-tube-openings-found-near-moons-north-pole/
So, you ask, “Why bother going to and living on the Moon if all you’re going to do is hang out in underground apartments???”
First, it isn’t entirely “inside living”. There would be substantial involvement with the outside, though I hope a good bit of it will be remote telepresence using robotics. There are without doubt interesting lunar mineral resources and so on. The Moon is also a great place to develop our ability to robotically construct large structures like telescopes – a great skill to have when starting a Mars colony.
One real allure of lunar colonization is guilt-free heavy industry. On the Earth, environmentalists will oppose every effort to do really big engineering. Nuclear power has been demonized beyond all reason. Pollution and toxic waste are huge and constant problems. All of those concerns vanish on the Moon. It is a natural site for heavy industry of all kinds, including spacecraft manufacture. With its shallow gravity well, it is a natural space station and gateway to the rest of the Solar System, just as visualized in science fiction 70+ years ago.
It also represents a truly new frontier, and is the first step into an unlimited future for humanity!
(BTW, as to the “hardships” of lunar life, I expect the Moon to be the absolute forefront of robotics and robotics research, for many reasons.)
All interesting points..
‘On the Earth, environmentalists will oppose every effort to do really big engineering. Nuclear power has been demonized beyond all reason. Pollution and toxic waste are huge and constant problems. All of those concerns vanish on the Moon.’
I dunno, in the Red Mars series of books, there were eco-terrorists who opposed developing Mars.
There may be some push back from people who enjoy looking up romantically at the beauty of pristine full Moon.
Check how the moon was made , never meant to be lived on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8LRxIANzQs
Nice video!
RW
What possible purpose could there be in faking the moon landing and all the money that would have to be continuously poured into it to keep that quiet, keep us entertained with pictures and such. More realistic government conspiracies are designed to steal our money or gain power… brain wash us into electing someone, or hide harmful substances from us due to lobbyists or what not. It’s always about the money and power. There is no money and power involved with a moon conspiracy.
Radiation isn’t proof that we didn’t go. People smoke cigarettes. Is that proof that they aren’t bad for you?
Anyways… I’m not one to trust the government with very much, but come on seriously… what is your proof it was faked other than the radiation?
Scott,
I’ve spent quite a bit of time really thoroughly examining this and critically thinking about it, and I would suggest everyone take the time to do so. Most people who believe we went and the hoax believers are crazy — I’ve found — are people who have never actually critically examined the issue in any significant detail. Superficially, many of the arguments in support of going and debunking it was a hoax seem to make sense, but fall apart upon critical examination of all the evidence and logic.
They faked it primarily because they took/spent so much of the tax payer’s money to develop technology to get man to the moon (to fulfill Kennedy’s promise), but ultimately they just couldn’t do it (like not even close); and didn’t have the humility or integrity to admit it. I think as it became more and more apparent in the late 1960s that they were just not going to be able to do it, they came up with the idea of faking it. You know, “if you can’t make it, fake it” was the mindset that developed and that they ultimately executed. This would keep the tax payer revenue coming in for decades to come and the other reason was to try to get one up on the Russians, who at that time, were much more advanced and more accomplished in space than the USA. It was like a bluff in poker from a military strategy point of view, to make the Russians think we were technologically superior to them. It may have worked initially, but the Russians — I believe — eventually found out not long after either through espionage or through their own knowledge were simply able to determine it wasn’t possible.
I don’t blame the astronauts. They were just following orders, and ultimately it saved the astronauts lives, as they would have almost certainly perished and never made it back. Bill Kaysing, who was a senior editor for Rocketdyne, said he saw internal memos in the 1960s estimating the chances of sending a man to the moon and returning him was like 1 in 10,000 at best. Basically zero or impossible. It was largely how he deduced that the missions must have been faked.
“Ive spent quite a bit of time really thoroughly examining this and critically thinking about it,”
And you don’t know the strength of the van Allen belt? Yet you know that exists?
Well, I certainly know what the levels are reported to be like on Wikipedia if that’s what you mean.
Is wiki different than this:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SMIII_Problem7.pdf
“4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour.
What is your answer to the ‘moon landing hoax’ believers?
Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days.
The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88 hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal.
Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless. ”
So if strapped crew to outside the spacecraft, it would not kill them, though not good to increase one’s monthly or yearly levels of radiation [not vaguely recommended to do this].
Main thing astronauts need to worry about is lifetime [or career time] radiation exposure, and our astronauts do exceed radiation worker lifetime levels of radiation by flying long time in orbit in ISS. But this mostly due to GCR radiation which is difficult to shield against [these particles going much faster {near speed of light}].
If strapped crew to spacecraft [without shielding] and they spend a lot time in the belt, they would not die lethal dose but would die from accumulation of radiation [they get cancer and lots other health risks and problems] if talking about weeks or months.
If interested, here are few good introductory videos on the subject:
Marcus Allen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVXvGOqInJE&t=157s
Bart Sibrel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-qMyHyMNZw
Well known Fox special from the early 2000s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiy9I1u3LHg
Here is better one from Marcus Allen. He was/is an expert on the cameras allegedly used to shoot the Apollo Moon photos. IMO, there is much in the photography that is extremely suspicious, but there’s not a smoking gun.
There was a recent one from him (from last year) that was really good, but it’s no longer up on youtube. At any rate, here is this one for anyone interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mzh-CWImMA&list=PLPSiAGL2tJ-byiABQJTtuANOIBK0Len9e
Marcus Allen ain’t no expert, he maybe a professional photographer but he would not have used the same cameras, film magazines, or film stock that the Apollo missions used.
Still pictures https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
Also note that lots of photos were not put on public view because they just were not very good enough.
As for the video see See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube
A glorified security camera “these slow-scan television (SSTV) cameras, running at 10 frames per second (fps), produced only black-and-white pictures and first flew on the Apollo 7 mission in October 1968. A color camera using a field-sequential color system flew on the Apollo 10 mission in May 1969, and every mission after that.” They had fragile Orthicon tubes in them and had a tendency to ‘flare’ when shooting bright scenes. But they were about the beast technology of the day for such a small camera.
Also note that due to the data rates for the transmission of video signal was very low (but high for the day), meaning that absolute resolution was low, and movement would smear. Overall the resolution of the video was about 300(H)200(V) lines maximum.
Well, Marcus Allen says he was an expert on exactly the cameras used for Apollo and had used them himself.
And I have a bridge to sell you!
That uncut/unedited interview with Sibrel I linked above is absolutely fascinating, but here is another thing of his he made:
‘Astronauts Gone Wild’. Now, I don’t agree with his tactics at all, but even considering, the behavior/responses from the astronauts is extremely suspicious and not consistent with them being innocent and having really gone to the Moon. Quite the contrary actually, as they look very uncomfortable, making strange gestures, etc. They look and are acting guilty, IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6Vcvl0OeU&t=2s
Sibrel seems to want to blame the astronauts, which makes no sense to me. I presume they were just following orders, i.e. more or less had no choice, and I doubt highly any of them came up with the idea of faking it or actually wanted to do it when presented and ordered to do it.
Again, I don’t agree with or support Sibrel’s tactics, but I find the behavior and responses of the astronauts extremely suspicious. But everyone can make up their own minds as to whether they think it is or not.
Oh dear, what have you done!
“The moon takes 29.5 Earth days to rotate”
Even worse than “the moon landing was faked” crowd is “the moon doesn’t rotate” crowd. They will be complaining shortly.
PB
That may cause more consternation in the comments section than whether the Apollo missions were faked.
Anyway, if I may be pedantic for a moment the Moon actually rotates on its axis every 27.3 Earth days with respect to the stars. 29.5 Earth days is the synodic or diurnal period and is the result of both the Moon’s rotation and it’s orbit around the Sun.
No consternation here.
I find people that are both ignorant and smug to be enjoyably amusing.
What is the tilt angle of axis of the Moon, upon which it spins once every 27.3 Earth days?
The Moon has small tilt angle, and because of the low tilt angle the Moon has “virtually has no seasons”.
But when are these insignificant seasons?
When is it winter in the northern hemisphere of the Moon?
“There are seasonal variations, but they are negligible. The biggest driver of seasonal variation on Earth is the 23 degree tilt. The Moon, however, with very little tilt compared to the Sun (1.54 degrees to the ecliptic), would have much smaller seasonal variations.”
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3541/are-there-seasons-on-luna
Everyone saying there seasons on the Moon.
And they are saying they are virtually no seasons and/or they are negligible.
But when are the negligible and/or virtually no seasons happening [even if they are but tiny and weenie]?
I would bet that the wisest of people could provide answer.
The moon landing fake crowd have an excuse. They are mentally ill. The moon non-rotating crowd are just plain stupid, have no understanding of simple kinematics, and are easily confused. They are the worst. They have the ability to be educated, but refuse, and would rather remain in their state of confusion.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364669
But on a plus side, there is no greenhouse gases!
So if I live on the moon there will not be a carbon tax?
Dr Spencer wrote –
“Because the lunar surface is relatively dark (about the same reflectivity as the open ocean), and because there are no clouds or weather to cool the surface, daytime temperatures soar to 250 deg. F at the lunar equator.”
During the day, the atmosphere keeps the Earth’s surface cooler than without. No GHE – cooling is not heating. At night, the atmosphere keeps the surface warmer than without. Obviously no GHE, temperatures drop anyway.
“Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
Cheers.
I believe that the USA landed a man on the moon because I lived through this period and except the experiences they communicated to the public, it would be unreasonable to think otherwise.
72 year-old Buzz Aldrin “teaches” a bully not to call him a “coward and a liar”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw9azZmLxtw
Except why would he punch him if he really walked on the Moon? You don’t know the whole story between the two of them prior to that event. Sibrel has him on tape inadvertently admitting/conceding the Moon missions were faked (you can find it on youtube if you search for it).
Sibrel has since said what he did to Aldrin in this instance was not appropriate and he wouldn’t do it again.
RW, in all your research, were you able to come up with an estimate of how many people would have had to be involved in faking the 6 missions, including all the necessary security and subsequent coverups?
Answer: about the same number involved in faking global surface temperature data.
DM,
How many people do you think are involved in faking global surface temperature data? Why do you think global surface temperature data is faked?
Is there a conspiracy, do you think?
Cheers.
Yup, I figured it would be a lot.
Dr. Myki, if you really have a PhD, which is not obvious from any of your comments here, sue the school — they should have failed you. !
Surface temperature compilations REQUIRE fake numbers for all surface grid cells that have no thermometers, and for grid cells where one or more stations failed to report the temperature in a given month.
As a result, a majority of surface grid cells contain wild guessed numbers = fake numbers that are REQUIRED for the global average temperature compilation.
Earlier this year, the USHCN had 61% fake numbers (designated “e”) and 39% real measurements — a record high percentage of faked (estimated / infilled / wild guessed) numbers for what is supposed to be the BNEST surface weather station network in the world !
Surface temperature compilations are not real science — they are science fraud.
This subject of “infilling” is rarely, if ever, discussed, but NASA-GISS has claimed record heat for some surface grid cells in Africa where THERE ARE NO THERMOMETERS.
I’m sure this is the kind of science you love, Dr. Myki, or is your alleged PhD in gender studies?
Mike, JD and RG,
I take it from your skeptical comments that you agree the surface temperature record is not to be trusted. That means a lot of people must be complicit in the fraud. If so, why not be skeptical about the so-called moon landing. RW provides some “compelling” evidence why we should be.
(compelling by the standards of denialists).
Cheers.
Ian, please stop trolling.
‘how many people would have had to be involved in faking the 6 missions, including all the necessary security and subsequent coverups?’
An awful lot.
Youve got all the folks at the two or more space centers, all the folks working for contractors building the spacecraft, all of folks working at the various radar tracking stations in various countries, all the press people with access to these centers and people.
An awful lot of books should have been written by now by some of these guys telling the true story.
YUP! ” all of folks working at the various radar tracking stations in various countries, and all the folks supporting them, and all the folks that processed that data, and all the folks who analyzed that data, and on and on.
But never mind RW thinks it was/still is a scam. Now that’s obsessive. Ask an y of us just in my groups. I’ve already answered earlier.
What RW forgets is that many of us are still alive with working minds and memories.
RW, from your commentaries I can safely assume you know little math or physics. Do you think you can aim a radar antenna at a satellite located to fake moon landing simultaneously from both sides of the earth?
Do you think the difference in moon/moon faking satellite coordinates wouldn’t be obvious? Remember the Z coordinate.
CoRev,
I don’t know exactly how they did it, but if you are who you say you are, i.e. actually worked on the missions, I don’t think you or any others like you were in on it.
According to Bart Sibrel, a control center technician who worked on the Apollo missions recently admitted he/they couldn’t distinguish a simulated Apollo training exercise from the Tetra satellite from real signals coming from the Moon. And that presumably this is how they did it, i.e. they claimed the satellite had crashed, but it was actually still up there to fake the signals coming from the Moon without the ground crew ever knowing they were only simulated as was done in training sessions.
What you allegedly have knowledge in and worked in, I cannot assess whether or not you could be fooled into thinking you were receiving real transmissions from the Moom when you were actually not.
I do, however, understand basic physics that the Moon has no atmosphere and is a vacuum. Therefore there is no sound on the Moon, yet here we have one of the astronauts hammering a stake into the ground with a hammer and his mike inside his helmet clearly picked up the sound (loudly), which is not possible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x25g5sdhG7U
BTW, this is the closest thing to a smoking gun that the Apollo missions were faked. In all my research at least.
In all of my research at least, it’s the closest thing to smoking gun, BY MY ASSESSMENT.
Before I first saw this I was still on the fence about whether or not I thought they really could have faked it. This definitely tipped the scales for me towards thinking it was indeed likely really faked. It was at this point that I started to delve more deeply into it all.
RW, I have no reason to lie and less to think I/we the tens of thousands who worked on the Apollo missions, were fooled. Much of the equipment was so dated that the developers were no longer available for changing. They needed to be changed to spoof the readings. No knowledgeable people and change was not possible.
I seriously wonder about the source of the videos you link. If spoofing is being done it is most likely there. How can anyone tell the validity of them? Modifying it/them could be achieved with relative ease and small team.
That’s just not true for the actual missions where hundreds of thousand were involved and would have to be spoofed, all their equipment spoofed, all the equipment support pieces, and all the manufacturers would have to be involved or spoofed fo 50-60 years.
You believe something of the magnitude of Apollo is easier to spoof than the evidence you present which is simple using today’s computer technology. That is the laughable part of your story.
NASA doesn’t deny the recorded audio of the clip of the astronaut allegedly hammering a stake into the lunar surface. They can’t, because their own astronauts have commented on it as part of the official record and it’s on the original footage that has been shown and released. The linked video and recorded audio is not the only source of this incident.
There is no way it’s possible, which means at least this particular footage was faked and shot somewhere on Earth. From this, it can and should be concluded that all of the other footage was likely faked and thus all of the Apollo missions themselves were likely faked too. It’s not absolute proof since they could have faked the footage, but not the missions. However, this is not logical given all of the other contradictory evidence and logic.
I’m sorry, but I do indeed think you have been fooled and suggest you take a step back and look into all of this in much more detail and with a much more critical eye.
Maybe start with the Bart Sibrel interview I linked. I don’t particular like his style and approach to all of this, but — but based on all my own research, thinking, and analysis — I do think he’s right.
Not an exact number, no. I would guess maybe 50-100 people involved in the project actually knew it was faked, but it’s only a guess. I have no way of knowing.
The overwhelming majority of people who worked on it did not know it was faked, including the people at Houston command center.
Like the atomic bomb, it was all heavily compartmentalized. Only those who needed to know it was being faked were told and knew.
RW,
‘The overwhelming majority of people who worked on it did not know it was faked, including the people at Houston command center.
Like the atomic bomb, it was all heavily compartmentalized. Only those who needed to know it was being faked were told and knew.’
You are talking like these are facts, when in reality they are pure speculation.
The 50-100 number is simply unreasonably small. That accounts for only astronauts, their bosses, backup crews, and associated engineers.
Youve got thousands of flight controllers, rocket engineers and technicians, contractors, radar tracking and communication people in various countries, and their chain of command.
They would have to be involved or duped. By who? Another team of engineers creating and somehow feeding them sophisticated fake data.
Then youve got the Hollywood production team. Have you seen the credits at the end of movies??
Then there is this, IMO, fatal flaw.
How do you hire the MANY required smart, highly talented engineers, astronauts, movie producers, special effects people, who are simultaneously willing to be complicit in a corrupt conspiracy, and be kept under CONTROL for decades after?
How do explain that NONE of these hundreds or thousands of people have written Books?!
RW, you make a compelling case. I wish more people were able to think for themselves, rather than simply swallowing the consensus view. But, having lived through the Apollo program, I remain skeptical that it was a hoax.
One of my concerns would be that other nations would have had to be involved in the hoax. I could maybe understand some of our allies helping us, but the Soviets? Red China? Many nations, and even some amateurs, had the ability to follow the radio transmissions. Transmissions from the lunar surface could not be faked. Such an effort could be easily detected.
The moon landings happened during the Nixon Administration. That was a time of extreme whistleblowing. Some insider, that knew the landings were being faked, could have been an instant hero!
Again, I appreciate your willingness to question, and make a reasonable argument. If it happens that proof emerges someday that the landing were faked, you will be right, and I will be wrong.
If what you’re saying is true and logical, then the atomic bomb, i.e. the Manhattan project, could not have been kept a secret. Over 100,000 people worked on the project and only a very small number of people actually knew what was ultimately being worked on.
For Apollo, I don’t know how many people knew, but secrets can be kept in the name of national security, especially if people were threatened to keep it secret. It may have been a few hundred that knew. I have no way of knowing how many.
The Apollo astronaut James Erwin was believed to have been killed almost immediately after he contacted Bill Kaysing in the early 1990s. Coincidence? Maybe, but it’s hard to believe it was. If you want to whole story from Kaysing, see the link below starting at 26:40. Same thing with Gus Grissom, who many believe was killed in order to silence him and/or send a message to the other astronauts that they better cooperate.
Also, a large film crew would not have been needed for the footage. A few dozen people probably could have done it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJxHnpa90w4&t=25s
JDHuffman,
I think it was likely accomplished using a satellite NASA had claimed had crashed to the Earth, but that was actually still up there. I think it was named the Tetra satellite or something similar. This satellite was what was supposedly used for simulating signals coming from the Moom for the Apollo training sessions. According to Bart Sibrel, one of the technicians recently admitted that they had no way to distinguish any of the training exercises from the alleged real mission or real transmission from the Moon. In other words, if it was faked, they in Houston monitoring it all would have had no way of knowing.
But your position is fair enough. I studied it all in a lot of depth and just couldn’t come to any other conclusion that it was nearly certainly faked. I can’t be absolutely sure of course, but as close as one could be for something of this nature I am.
I should say I did not initially think it was faked when I started looking into it not long ago. It took quite a bit of time before a reached the point where I thought it might actually have been faked and that it was worth seriously considering.
The Manhattan Project. The secret had to be kept for 2 y. It wasnt kept secret very well. The Russians learned about from at least two sources. The head of the project told his communist mistress also.
Only the nuclear physicists involved knew what a nuclear bomb even was at the time. Others could be satisfied they were working on a secret military military project.
There was no Press access to the Manhattan project.
The goal of defeating the Nazis was considered a noble cause by most. Faking the moon landings for PR? Not such a good cause.
Good arguments, JD.
They could apply equally well to climate science conspiracy theories.
RW,
Many issues. One more is the iconic images of Earth from behind the Moon. I had a large poster of one of these when I was a kid.
These are awfully impressive fakes, and weve obtained many since then that match up. Compare to the best from Hollywood at the time, eg 2001, not remotely of the same quality and realism.
And we have video and audio of these photos being taken in 1968 and the reactions of the astronauts. Good acting!
I don’t think mainstream climate science is a conspiracy. Just wrong mostly, regarding the magnitude of the effect.
RW, I am with you on this one. I dont trust anything USA leadership says anymore. Think “weapons of mass destruction”, fake news about Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama, the fake news about Iran at the moment. There is always a hidden agenda at work. With the moon landings it was elaborately staged simply to demonstrate superiority over the Russians. The same with climate change – only the gullible believe this is true. Stick to your guns, the truth is gradually being revealed.
What fake news is there about Obama and Hilary? All the fake news I’ve seen is about Trump.
You can include him if you like. But seeing as he is currently in charge, whose side do you think he is on? He is perfect in the role – a serial liar who can protect hidden agendas.
You would need a large hydroponcs greenhouse, both to provide food and recycle the oxygen…
You could mine for the water but nuteients would be scare . all waste would need to be recycled plus regular fertilizer deliveries from Earth
I might try to get there as a stowaway on the fertilizer ships 🙂
A UV filter for the greenhouse would be needed….
Hmmmm sci fi stoy brewing….
And an awful lot of protection from any solar event!
RW,
“This information on wiki about the radiation levels is not accurate. I dont know how high the levels are, but theyre lethal”
How do you know they’re lethal if you don’t know how high they are?
I already answer this question.
PJ, what happened to Laika, the first living organism sent into space?
The poor dog died due to exposure to harmful radiation. Is that lethal enough?
Laika died of hyperthermia. The capsule lost a heat shield, temperatures had risen to over 90F, by the 4th orbit. Laika died within 10 hours of launch.
But what caused the temperatures to rise? They were in orbit, not re-entry.
DMT
Have you considered the possibility that the Sun could have heated the capsule? It was not radiant energy, it was overheating.
https://books.google.com/books?id=dr6R51cqQ6IC&pg=PA582&lpg=PA582&dq=Laika+died+of+hyperthermia&source=bl&ots=sYrBcKA3uF&sig=ACfU3U2L–StC9y_vD1NB3JtLxpHKXSY1A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi2kKKEoLXjAhUNQ80KHVw4AsEQ6AEwDHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Laika%20died%20of%20hyperthermia&f=false
The sun stupid!
I’ve always had a problem with the lunar “temperature.”
On Earth, it normally means the temperature of the atmosphere, at a standard height above ground, in a standard structure.
On the moon, what does it mean? Is it the temperature of the surface? If so, the impact of that on someone living their is very different from an atmospheric temperature.
John Moore
“On Earth, it normally means the temperature of the atmosphere…”
No. We measure the temperature 2 m above ground.
With the exception of people measuring the temperature within various atmospheric layers, but that’s not where we live.
On the Moon we measure the temperature at the surface.
Check out the LRE (Lunar Radiation Experiment):
https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science
These measurements have been modeled by our host (Dr. Roy) here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/simple-radiative-EBM-of-sfc-and-NOatm-with-diurnal-cycle.xlsx
This model does not match measurements well but the errors can easily be fixed. However there are a bunch of models that track observations very closely. For example, Vasavada, Channon, Scott Denning, “br”, gallopingcamel and others.
A calculation using standard radiative physics matches the observations very well:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
David, please stop trolling.
RW,
“Except why would he punch him if he really walked on the Moon?”
That’s exactly WHY I would punch him if he called me a liar and a coward…
Good for you Buzz!!
I sympathise with Buzz Aldrin’s response.
I would have followed my father’s advice.
“Don’t punch him, you’ll hurt your hand. Use an implement.”
“The poor dog died due to exposure to harmful radiation. Is that lethal enough”
And don’t you think we learned from that? And how to decrease the exposure of our astronauts?
I suppose you think the miracle of Apollo XIII was faked too?
PhilJ, no! He thinks the miraclce of Apollo 1 was faked.
Laika died of hyperthermia.
What caused this overheating? It was not in re-entry.
The Sun stupid!
RW
This link will provide you with all the answers to the questions you bring up. You may have missed it in your research. All the points made are brought up and refuted. The Van-Allen Belt intense radiation barrier is a hoax. I think these Conspiracies theories are intentionally developed to see how many people can be caught by them. I think they are done on multiple topics. It is a way to control the Public. The only way to control is to test how the thought process works and how people come to believe things as either true or false.
Here is the link. Hope you take some time to read it.
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
Quote from the scientist who found and studied the belts and they are named after him. ”
“The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” — Dr. James Van Allen”
If it’s a hoax, then it stands to reason many subsequent missions would have gone through the belt. Because the Apollo missions would have proved it to be no problem whatsoever, right? Yet not a single one has or will since.
Why did Kelly Smith (a NASA engineer) say in a video that the Van Allen belts are an area of ‘dangerous radiation’ if in reality they’re not? He further said ‘we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space’.
BTW, Van Allen said the exact opposite in 1959 in a Scientific American article. He recanted this when Apollo started.
Werner van Braun, who built the rocket, also prior said travelling to the moon was impossible, because the size of the rockets needed to carry enough fuel to get them there, would need to be unfeasibly large (way larger than the Saturn 5 rocket was). He also recanted this when Apollo started.
All of this, at a minimum, should be extremely suspicious.
RW
You are making many unsupported declarations.
You say Van Allen had stated something in Scientific American in 1959. Great how can I verify that? Even if I went to a library you don’t say what issue or article this appears in.
Then you say the Saturn V does not have enough fuel to get to the Moon. Find the quote of Werner Van Braun. This is not good research to make many unsupported claims. You make the claims you need to provide the evidence.
Also scientists KNOW the Van Allen Radiation Belts have dangerous radiation. They even know the amounts of exposure. They did things to mitigate the dangers to astronauts. No one would want to be in this region for continuous periods.
It’s in the short video I linked above. It’s in the March 19th issue from 1959. The video not only says the quote from the article, but shows it on the screen.
It’s in the short video I linked right here. It’s from the March 19th issue from 1959. The video not only says the quote, but puts the text from the article on the screen.
RW
Yes I found it. Read on, it says that if they do not find a way to protect the astronauts. They found a way. One was to avoid traveling into the most intense parts of the Belts and the other was a type of shielding that worked against high energy particles. The radiation in the belts if high energy protons and electrons. Not gamma or X-rays.
If you read what Van Allen said. They give the radiation intensity as 10-100 roentgens. Van Allen said if an astronaut was exposed to this for 2 days they would have a 50-50 chance of survival. They were only in this region a short time.
Read the article I linked to. It covers nearly every conspiracy point about the Belts.
If what you’re saying makes sense, then what are they doing with Orion in trying to figure out how to get through the belts and protect from the radiation? With unmanned flights first for rigorous testing? 45 years later?
They would already know exactly how to do it, because they did it successfully 9 times, and perfectly each time. Right?
It makes no sense. And remember, the Van Allen belts are just the first leg of the mission. They then have to travel 1000 times further than the space shuttle goes, land on a foreign body manually, take off from that foreign body manually, synchronize manually from that take off with the lunar orbiter craft traveling at 4000 miles and hour, travel that 1000 times distance back to earth, and successfully make it back to the surface coming it at 25,000 miles per hour when they first hit the atmosphere in their return pods. All on the first attempt with no practice run or test run or anything.
BTW, I understand the unmanned Orion craft that went the VA belts passed its tests, which is good news; however, I understand the re-entry pod they designed for use with it failed its tests. And it failed despite having a much more robust construction and heat shielding than the pods used on Apollo. In other words, it’s more robust and modern than what was allegedly used on Apollo, and it failed its tests? What does this tell you?
Did they ever have any issues with the re-entry pods on any of the Apollo missions? No, they didn’t. So what’s the problem? It doesn’t make any sense.
“If you read what Van Allen said. They give the radiation intensity as 10-100 roentgens. Van Allen said if an astronaut was exposed to this for 2 days they would have a 50-50 chance of survival.”
No, he said if they were exposed to just 10 roentgens for two days they would have only a 50% change of survival, so presumably they would be made very sick and be immensely physical impaired from two days exposure to 10 roentgens. Even a smaller dosage — logically — would probably have made anyone ill. Perhaps significantly ill.
“They were only in this region a short time.”
Yes, I’m totally aware that at the speeds they were allegedly traveling at, they would have only been exposed to the VA radiation belts for maybe and hour or less.
It still doesn’t make any sense that they’re still trying to figure out how to do it 45 years later, and that this is only the first leg of the mission. Which they still haven’t even done, and neither has anyone else. In now over 50 years.
However, it makes absolutely perfect sense if they were not able to figure it out, and never actually went through it, and the Apollo missions were faked. It matches up perfectly with that.
“Read the article I linked to. It covers nearly every conspiracy point about the Belts.”
I did. I’m not convinced it anywhere near adequately addresses the issues. In particular, it glossed over the shielding issue of the Apollo craft and dismissed it without sufficient evidence or logic. Especially when you consider what they’re trying to do with Orion 45 years later.
If they really did what the say, i.e. they went through the belts, the shielding they had easily provided sufficient protection, etc., it would be a non, already long solved issue and they would not be working on trying to do it with unmanned test flights today before even considering actually sending someone through it.
How do you not see the glaring illogic of this?
RW
You claim to have researched the topic. It seems that is a failed attempt. What you did was get conned by a few very simplistic distorted videos on YouTube that are total junk science (no basic research, just false statements by unknown people fooling people into thinking their points are valid).
If you do research on this issue you will find the YouTube videos you believe are valid are total junk. Worthless. You will accept you fell for a conjob and work to extract your mind from this false narrative.
Here are some that might help you.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-a-NASA-engineer-admit-that-they-cant-get-past-the-Van-Allen-radiation-belts-Isn%E2%80%99t-this-the-smoking-gun-of-a-cover-up
And here
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts/
Norman,
Look, I’ve seen all of this kind of stuff and sought it out myself during my research. One of things I did specifically was listen to the arguments and evidence presented by both sides. And then critically analyzed and digest all of the claims. Over a period of weeks and months.
I most certainly didn’t just watch a few youtube videos and then think the missions were faked. I didn’t even start doing much research until a reached the point where I thought there was a real chance they may have actually been faked. It was a slow process, taking many months.
In order to make any kind of informed assessment you need to put in some significant time listening to both sides. And then really critically thinking about, over a long period of time. This is what I did, and I concluded the evidence and logic supported that the missions were nearly certainly faked. I understand that for someone like yourself who apparently assumes the missions couldn’t have been faked and hasn’t taken the time, it seems hard to believe. But this is what happened.
If you think you’re sure and don’t want to do it, that’s fine. It’s your choice.
And my conclusion has nothing to with waving flags or the inability to see stars in the photographs or footage (which is actually correct that stars should not be visible in either). And in the footage, the flag doesn’t move or wave unless they’re fiddling with it. They weren’t stupid enough to leave in footage of the flag waving on its own. Now, the way it waves when they’re fiddling with it is a little suspicious in that it doesn’t look (to me) like it’s waving in 1/6 gravity (or in a vacuum), but ultimately it’s inconclusive.
There is much in the photography that is highly suspicious for a number of reasons, but nothing that approaches a smoking gun, in my view. However, it was many of the more suspicious aspects of the photography I’ve seen presented that made me consider the possibility that the missions may have actually been faked.
But it was long time from that to concluding the missions were nearly certainly faked.
This should have said:
“I understand that for someone like yourself who apparently assumes the missions couldnt have been faked and hasnt taken the time, it seems hard to believe. But this is what happened WITH ME.”
Also, I was born after the Apollo missions allegedly took place, so I never witnessed the ‘event’ when it happened (and thus was never convinced or believed what was alleged to have happened actually happened at the time it happened). I learned in school history class that they took place and the USA put men on the Moon, and assumed, like most everyone, that they really did.
Of course, years later I learned about the conspiracy theory that it was faked. I mean who hasn’t heard of it? It must be the most iconic conspiracy theory of the 20th century, right?. I of course, like most everyone, assumed it wasn’t actually be true.
It was the landmark Fox special from the early 2000s that planted the the seed in my mind that it could possibly have really been faked, but I was not convinced at all after watching it that it was faked. I think I saw it when it originally aired and didn’t revisit the issue until many years later when I watched it again on — I think — Netflix streaming. It was at that point that I started doing more research and finding more and more suspicious and illogical things about the photography in particular that no one seemed to be able to provide any logical answers to.
For example, no one really seems to address the many highly suspicious aspects of the photography pointed out by Marcus Allen, and he’s an very credible authority on them because he was a professional photographer and used the same cameras they used on Apollo and new that particular camera and all its features and nuances intimately. Rather than address his claimed issues with them and offer answers, they more less just say he’s crazy, should be hospitalized, etc. I found this highly suspicious to say the least.
RW
Your major point that proved the lunar missions were faked was the Van Allen Radiation belts. Now you are giving vague ephemeral research in convincing you that these missions were faked.
Whatever research you did not the Van Allen Belts is most certainly unscientific and very poor. If you did as poorly with your other research I would suggest investing in more scientific and rational thought process.
So far all the points you have brought up to prove the Moon Landings were fake are not good at all. You seem very convinced that you are correct. After proving your radiation thesis is horrible what gives you such confidence. I am sure all the other material is similar junk science created by someone on a blog or YouTube video.
Here is one. I am now totally certain the Earth is a flat disk and there is a massive conspiracy theory. It has to be true, I saw a YouTube video about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPRJzNc876A
Norman,
All you’re doing is coming from the perspective that they couldn’t have been faked and just quickly searching out evidence and claims online that allegedly demonstrates they weren’t. Anyone can do this, as it takes minimal time, thought and effort.
You’ve not really critically examined anything, where as I have. This alone does not make me correct and you wrong, but it does make my position on the issue more informed than yourself, in my view.
The Van Allen Belts are only one of the issues. We haven’t even delved into the other issues, which there are many.
BTW, there is — IMO — no absolute proof or smoking gun the Apollo Moon missions were faked. It’s the preponderance of all of the evidence, logic and behavior that supports, by my assessment, that they were nearly certainly faked or seemingly had to be faked.
But you’re free to examine the evidence and make up your own mind. Or not. If you want to believe the missions really happened based on what you know and have seen, so be it.
Norman,
I assume you understand basic physics and that the Moon has no atmosphere and is a vacuum. Therefore there is no sound on the Moon, yet here we have one of the Apollo astronauts hammering a stake into the alleged lunar surface with a hammer and his mike inside his helmet clearly picked up the sound (loudly), which is not possible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x25g5sdhG7U
BTW, this is the closest thing to a smoking gun that the Apollo missions were faked that I’ve found. If this doesn’t make you suspicious that the Moon missions could have really been faked and it’s worth looking into, then it’s hard to believe anything would.
BTW, NASA doesnt deny the recorded audio of the clip of the astronaut allegedly hammering a stake into the lunar surface. They cant, because their own astronauts have commented on it as part of the official record and its on the original footage that has been shown and released. The linked video and recorded audio is not the only source of this incident.
There is no way its possible, which means at least this particular footage was faked and shot somewhere on Earth. From this, it can and should be concluded that all of the other footage was likely faked and thus all of the Apollo missions themselves were likely faked too. Its not absolute proof since they could have faked the footage, but not the missions. However, this is not logical in my view given all of the other contradictory evidence and illogic surrounding the missions.
RW
Even this “hammering sound” on the Moon does have a valid answer.
The vibrations traveled through the suit and were picked up by the microphone. None of your solid evidence are at all solid and it seems many have already explained all the alleged “fake” Moon Mission items quite well.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/924238/Moon-landings-hoax-astronauts-hammer-noise
Maybe you can claim the vibration idea is not valid. Did the Conspiracy theorist ever do valid experiments to prove that vibrational energy could not travel up the arm to a microphone? Conspiracy ideas are generally not science. They can be interesting ideas and things to think of. I know of very few actual conspiracy peddlers that come up with actual proof of any of their points. The Myth Busters do actual experiments to prove things. The others just make claims that people like you seem to believe. You demand proof of the scientists but demand zero from the conspiracy peddlers.
Not sure why you think this is such a solid conspiracy. Evidence in favor of the Moon Missions.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax
Read through the evidence the lunar missions actually did take place as stated.
RW,
What do you make of this paper from 1964?
Analysis of proton flux when shielded by Aluminum. See Fig 19 for Van Allen dose analysis.
Idea is that capsule is an Aluminum/steel shell of a couple cm, and then instrumentation inside adds more shielding, to reduce dose below 10 rads/hour.
Arrrggh here:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19640020596.pdf
Norman,
“Even this “hammering sound” on the Moon does have a valid answer.”
No, it doesn’t. The explanations for it are absolute nonsense. Listen to it. It’s a high frequency hit sound of two hard objects coming into contact with one another, i.e banging on one another. Completely consistent with someone being surrounded by normal air on Earth and hitting something, the sound getting through the face plate of helmet and then picked up by the mike. This is exactly what it sounds like. Even if some resonance of the vibration were to somehow miraculously make it through the glove, through the hand (both of which, BTW, are highly absorbant to vibration) and into the suit, up the arm and into the mike, it would be at most a very low level, low frequency thumping sound — not a high frequency sharp hitting sound.
But even this is nonsense and wouldn’t happen. Nothing would be picked up even if one of the astronauts took a metal baseball bat and whacked it as hard as they could on a metal pole. There is no sound in space, period. Let alone loud sounds of objects whacked against each other.
Like I say, this is the closest thing to smoking gun I’ve found. It should be arising extreme suspicion from everyone, but people try to rationalize it away when the explanations for it are nonsense.
As I’ve said, it is possible they faked the footage (to show to public for the ‘event’) and still went to moon, but based on everything else I’ve seen and critically analyzed I can only conclude they did not.
Norman,
“The Myth Busters do actual experiments to prove things”
You probably don’t know, but a Russian group of scientists tried to duplicate Myth Busters’ results and could not. When pressed, one of the Myth Busters who does the show admitted they falsified/fudged the results, and said that ultimately their show was ‘entertainment’ and not science. Or something like this.
Look, if you want to think I’m stupid, gullible, or unaware of all kinds of bunk/untrue things on youtube, etc. Fine, it doesn’t bother me. I’ve spent a lot of time digesting and critically thinking about it all. From both sides. You have not.
For one, are you aware that one of the Moon rocks given directly by one of the Apollo 11 Astronauts to a curator in Holland in 2009 was put under the microscope and found to be fake? It was a piece of petrified wood. Are you aware that it is now illegal to own or be in possession of alleged Moon rock?
If so, what nonsense is this? And how does it not arise major suspicion? What possible reason would there be for making having Moon rocks illegal, except that they know they’re fake and don’t want people looking at and/or to be able to examine them? This, by itself, should be raising major red flags, but for some reason it doesn’t. Because people are not being rational.
RW,
‘Ive spent a lot of time digesting and critically thinking about it all. From both sides. You have not.’
Are you sure you look at information from sides with equal srutiny?
Once someone decides on a hypothesis like this one, the tendency is to read and accept only confirming information.
It can be seen here in several of your posts. Information that seems inconsistent with your idea is mostly ignored or dismissed.
Information that you have already accepted is considered a ‘smoking gun’, even when people find flaws in it, such as the hammering sound.
It is well known that sound travels well through solid materials like human bones, railroad tracks, etc,
and yet, you dismiss that idea with hand-waving arguments and ‘But even this is nonsense and wouldnt happen.’
Critical thinking? Ive taught this concept. An important aspect of that is ‘consider the source’.
Is it a reliable source? Does the source have its own agenda? Is the source’s main agenda journalism? Or promoting conspiracy theories? Or obtaining ‘views’ by being controversial? Is the source providing supporting evidence for its claim?
So when you present ‘facts’ to us such as moon rocks were found to be petrified wood,
I immediately wonder, have you ‘considered the source’ for this information?
Nate,
“Once someone decides on a hypothesis like this one, the tendency is to read and accept only confirming information.”
Not really, and I would suggest if anything the opposite is case for those who believe the missions really happened. They’re starting from the premise that they couldn’t have been faked and just accepting any confirming information out there with little to no scrutiny. Norman is a classic example, but you appear to be doing the same thing, as does most everyone else, in my experience.
The problem is there was no independent verification of the alleged Apollo missions unlike virtually all other major landmark events in human history. From after launch when the rocket disappears from view to splash down days later all we have to rely on is what NASA more or less claims happened in between.
This makes it very difficult to assess credibility by conventional means, and fairly sophisticated critical thinking techniques involving the behavior of those involved, various forms of evidence and logic, how responses to questions about things are answered (or not answered) by NASA, the astronauts themselves, etc. have be relied on heavily.
“Information that you have already accepted is considered a smoking gun, even when people find flaws in it, such as the hammering sound.”
Even the captured hammering sound is not an absolute smoking gun that they didn’t go to the Moon. I’ve said there is no absolute smoking gun, and (of course) I can’t be absolutely sure the missions were faked. Only nearly sure.
“It is well known that sound travels well through solid materials like human bones, railroad tracks, etc,
and yet, you dismiss that idea with hand-waving arguments and But even this is nonsense and wouldnt happen.”
It is absolute spectacular nonsense on steroids, yes. Sound needs air to travel from one place to another. That’s what sound is. Human skin and tissue is highly absorbant to vibration. So are the space suit gloves. But even if we entertain the ultra slim possibility that some of the vibration from hammer hit (at the end of the hammer) when back through the hammer, through the glove, and into the skin on the hand, then up the arm, how does that vibration get converted into sound captured by the mike? Let alone sound as glaringly loud and sharp high frequency ‘hit’ as that audio? It’s not possible.
Under normal circumstances you would never accept these possible explanations for something like this. They’re pure nonsense. In that clip, they’re not on the moon.
To quote Bart Sibrel: “When are people going to give up their emotions and start facing facts?”
He addresses a lot of these kind of psychological barriers people seem to have in assessing all of this stuff and why they can’t seem to see glaringly suspicious things that they would normally see. They can’t let go of their emotions and see what’s right in front of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-qMyHyMNZw
‘fairly sophisticated critical thinking techniques involving the behavior of those involved, various forms of evidence and logic, how responses to questions about things are answered (or not answered) by NASA, the astronauts themselves, etc. have be relied on heavily.’
Yes, sophisticated, as in having a conspiratorial mindset, like my mother-in-law.
Some people look at events and see patterns that others dont see, that matches up to conspiracy patterns, and then see confirming information on conspiracy-oriented internet sites, and become even more certain about it.
Most of us seek out information that tends to confirm our prior beliefs.
Hence the success, and evolution of Fox news etc.
“‘Once someone decides on a hypothesis like this one, the tendency is to read and accept only confirming information.’
Not really, and I would suggest if anything the opposite is case for those who believe the missions really happened.”
Always its the other team who has biases, but not my team!
Well, that is telling.
In the discussion here there has been a number of rebuttals to your claims about the VA radiation.
And most of it is dismissed or ignored (eg several of mine).
You are not really open to such dis-confirming information, are you?
Nate,
“Yes, sophisticated, as in having a conspiratorial mindset, like my mother-in-law.
Some people look at events and see patterns that others dont see, that matches up to conspiracy patterns, and then see confirming information on conspiracy-oriented internet sites, and become even more certain about it.”
I don’t have a conspiratorial mindset. I don’t even think mainstream climate science is a conspiracy, as lot of people here do. I’ve seen numerous 9/11 inside job conspiracy documentaries, and I’m not convinced from what I’ve seen that it was. I’m not someone who believes in wacky things or conspiracy theories in general.
I have however spent a lot of time digesting the claims of the Apollo missions being faked, and I’ve concluded that this is the one biggie conspiracy theory that is actually true, almost for sure. But it took a very long time before I even reached the point where I thought there was a real chance it could actually really be true. Upon watching the landmark Fox conspiracy theory show from the early 2000s I was not convinced from that that it was faked. At most, it opened up the possibility it might be possible it was faked. Have you even watched it?
“In the discussion here there has been a number of rebuttals to your claims about the VA radiation.
And most of it is dismissed or ignored (eg several of mine).
You are not really open to such dis-confirming information, are you?”
It’s because it doesn’t even come close to matching up with all of the behavior surrounding the issue. If correct, it would mean the Van Allen radiation belts problem was resolved 50 years ago, perfectly. They allegedly went through it 9 times 100% perfectly with not a single issue whatsoever, with anything or anyone. It should be a long solved issue, yet no mission from any country has even attempted to go through the belts ever since, and we have astronauts today saying the farthest they can go is low Earth Orbit. It doesn’t make sense at the most elementary level of logic. When this is weighed with all the other illogic, inconsistencies, unexplained anomalies — most of which we haven’t even discussed — I conclude it’s not correct. With high confidence.
As I’ve said, there is no single smoking gun. Including the Van Allen Belts (or even Van Allen’s earlier statements about them). It’s when all of the evidence and behavior is weighed together and thoroughly digested and critically analyzed that I’m making my conclusion.
If you want to know how they faked the 1/6th gravity effect in the footage, here you go. They apparently used wires in conjunction with slow motion, and it wasn’t even that difficult to do. A few examples from the footage can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0
RW,
Ok, so you are not accepting of most conspiracy theories, just this one.
You keep saying youve done research, Ok. But just saying that is not convincing to others.
Each conspiracy theory out there has been researched by advocates and slick videos posted about them.
Flat Earth, Chem trails, Sandy Hook, 911. Plenty of convincing sounding info by people who seem convinced.
Long ago I looked at a Fox News video, that someone showed me. Then i found other sites that specifically debunked each item in that video.
The flag is waving, the shadows are wrong, etc
Have you looked at those and thought critically about them?
You have to deal with the rebuttals of each item directly.
-The recent pictures of the landing sites from Japan and NASA. You claim, unconvincingly, that its obviously fake.
-The 1964 paper I showed you researched shielding of the VA radiation. Others showed you data. It appears adequate.
-The number of people involved and the lack of books from these people, despite the Cold War being long since over. The more people, the more decades, the more the probability becomes vanishingly small.
-The highly realistic, naturalistic ‘acting’ ‘production’ and ‘special effects’.
-Your scenario involves deception on an enormous scale. Sort of like an Oceans 11 caper x 1 million.
This is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.
You just dont have that.
–
‘ It should be a long solved issue, yet no mission from any country has even attempted to go through the belts ever since”
Two obvious possibilities here:
1. It cant be done safely
2. There has been no strong interest by the main players, US and Russia, in sending humans to the Moon again, until now. Mars is MUCH HARDER.
With the Cold War Space Race over, the waning interest in it, and the emphasis on low-gravity science, low-cost unmanned planetary exploration, Earth sciences, and the utility of satellites in orbit, #2 makes a lot of sense.
Why do you reject #2?
The South Pole was first reached in 1911, but the second time was not until 1956, by plane.
Like the Moon race, the race to the South Pole having been won, -there was simply no compelling need to go to such great efforts to go back.
Nate,
“Ok, so you are not accepting of most conspiracy theories, just this one.”
Yes, correct.
“You keep saying you’ve done research, Ok. But just saying that is not convincing to others.”
I can see that, and just saying it shouldn’t be.
“Each conspiracy theory out there has been researched by advocates and slick videos posted about them.”
Of course. Means nothing. I’m well aware and have seen many.
“Flat Earth, Chem trails, Sandy Hook, 911. Plenty of convincing sounding info by people who seem convinced.”
Well like I say I’ve seen quite a few, and I’m not convinced.
“Long ago I looked at a Fox News video, that someone showed me. Then i found other sites that specifically debunked each item in that video.
The flag is waving, the shadows are wrong, etc
Have you looked at those and thought critically about them?”
Yes. For one, my conclusion has nothing to do with waving flags on the (alleged) Moon footage.
I explain much of this here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-363889
“You have to deal with the rebuttals of each item directly.”
I have. Which ones do you want to go through? Assuming I even disagree with them.
“-The recent pictures of the landing sites from Japan and NASA. You claim, unconvincingly, that its obviously fake.”
Yes, because there is no reason why they couldn’t get really clear, close shots with lots of detail to put it all to rest once and for all (provided they really went). Especially given how close the satellite orbits the moon and that there’s no atmosphere even to ‘blur’ the results. People have also analyzed them and found the relative sizes of the items to one another don’t match the actual documented sizes of the items.
Plus, it’s just plain looks fake. The rover tracks, for example, are seem too distinct and clear.
“-The 1964 paper I showed you researched shielding of the VA radiation. Others showed you data. It appears adequate.”
Appears? Based on what? That you think the missions had to have happened?
“-The number of people involved and the lack of books from these people, despite the Cold War being long since over. The more people, the more decades, the more the probability becomes vanishingly small.
-The highly realistic, naturalistic acting production and special effects.
-Your scenario involves deception on an enormous scale. Sort of like an Oceans 11 caper x 1 million.”
Initially, I thought the same, because superficially at least, it seemed logical. It was the main reason I dismissed it or assumed it couldn’t have been faked. For many years. However, the successful execution of the Manhattan project suggests it’s fairly easily possible, i.e. they had nearly 150,000 people working on it and only an extremely small number actually knew what the final product they were working on was. I don’t know how many people knew the Moon missions were being faked (or were ultimately faked). I have no way of knowing. I would guess it’s at least 100 people, but less than 500, but I have no way of knowing the actual number.
“This is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.
You just dont have that.”
Superficially, it would seem that it is an extraordinary claim, but it’s not really if you think about it since there has been no independent verification of any of it. NASA basically just claims they went to the Moon for Apollo 11-17. It can’t be verified (either way) in any conventional way.
Nate,
“It should be a long solved issue, yet no mission from any country has even attempted to go through the belts ever since
Two obvious possibilities here:
1. It cant be done safely
2. There has been no strong interest by the main players, US and Russia, in sending humans to the Moon again, until now. Mars is MUCH HARDER.
With the Cold War Space Race over, the waning interest in it, and the emphasis on low-gravity science, low-cost unmanned planetary exploration, Earth sciences, and the utility of satellites in orbit, #2 makes a lot of sense.
Why do you reject #2?”
Good question. I will try to answer it. Now, as I’ve said, keep in mind it’s not one specific thing that is convincing me the Moon missions were faked. It’s the preponderance of all the evidence, logic, and especially the surrounding human behavior that ultimately is.
Firstly, the Van Allen belts are only just the first leg of the Moon missions and they are right above the Earth, so it’s not just that no one else has attempted to go the Moon in over 50 years; no one else has even attempted just the first leg of mission in now over 50 years.
Russia never even attempted to go to the Moon, even after we allegedly did. If it was possible at the time, there would have been strong motivation for them to do it also. But they never did, given at the time at least (before Apollo allegedly happened), they were considerably more advanced and more accomplished in space than the USA.
Now, it is within the realm of possibility that no one ever attempted to go more than about 200-300 miles above the Earth in over 50 years because there was simply no interest in doing so? Yes, but I don’t think this is logical and reasonable, given if the Apollo missions really happened, it would have proved going through the Van Allen Belts and back (and even significantly beyond for days at a time) was absolutely no problem whatsoever.
So yes, I’m concluding from this that the more likely or credible reason is because no one has figured out yet how to do it safely (or how to get astronauts through it safely). The Orion project’s unmanned rigorous Geiger sensor loaded test flight into the Van Allen belts and back is perfectly consistent with this conclusion, BTW. As is its departure/return pod failing its tests despite having significantly more robust heat shieling than the Apollo ones did. In other words, it’s more robust and it failed its tests (meaning if humans were inside they would have overheated and been killed upon re-entry).
Also, haven’t you noticed that desired new Moon missions by Presidents always eventually get cancelled? When push comes to shove, it seems they can’t ever actually do it again. I find this illogical and highly suspicious, as should everyone. But few people ever do for whatever reason.
Nate,
As further support for my conclusion on your posed question, see what two astronauts from the ISS said themselves in and interview while in space. They say the furthest humans CAN go is low earth orbit. They don’t say at all that there has never been a desire to go further so they just haven’t gone any further yet. See this video starting at 21:27 below for their first hand comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlUNJzU9Mdw
If interested, and in fairness, this was one of the best programs I saw that purports to debunk the Moon hoaxers. It was a whole program dedicated to debunking the many arguments put forth by those claiming it was a hoax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy6ZLJoam1Q
Let me know if you want to go through these.
Nate,
Have you seen any of Bart Sibrel’s stuff or watched that general interview that covers a lot of his stuff I linked? Probably not, because you assume he’s a conspiracy kook or nut as you’ve been led to believe. Do you know he has actual footage from NASA of the Apollo 11 craft clearly faking a shot being half way to the Moon? That he put into a documentary called ‘A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon” for anyone to see? Which can now be seen for free on his youtube channel?
You might wonder how he got the footage in the first place, as it makes no sense NASA would have given it to him. Well, you should watch the interview I linked to get the whole story, but basically he believes an insider at NASA, who knows the Moon missions were faked, sent it to him deliberately.
He also produced ‘Astronauts gone wild’ where in it, the behavior, body language and demeanor of the astronauts is incredibly suspicious, despite the fact they were misled into thinking they were doing interviews commemorating the Apollo missions. They look like guilty people who have been found out to me. Allen Bean didn’t even know they traveled through the Van Allen Belts, and then when he realized they had to have he rambled on nonsensically how they were able to see the effects of the radiation. All while making weird faces and a ton of uncomfortable gestures…
Now, a certain amount of annoyance for being misled about the interview purpose is expectable, but their reactions were way over the top beyond this, IMO. I found their behavior INCREDIBLY suspicious to say the least.
“See what two astronauts from the ISS said themselves in and interview while in space.”
Honestly, what they said was that we cannot go higher now. The context was the need for a heavy lift vehicle, the one being developed, NOT the VA belts.
The whole video is typical of the conspiracy theory genre, lots of certainty about speculative claims, smoking guns, with little discussion of alternative boring explanations for things.
” it is within the realm of possibility that no one ever attempted to go more than about 200-300 miles above the Earth in over 50 years because there was simply no interest in doing so? Yes, but I dont think this is logical and reasonable”
It is perfectly logical when one considers the changed missions of NASA, and budget.
Space missions must have a compellin reason. Other than going to the Moon again, there is no NEED to exceed VA.
” extraordinary claim, but its not really if you think about it since there has been no independent verification of any of it. NASA basically just claims they went to the Moon for Apollo 11-17.”
Cmon that is a stretch. Many people saw the rockets launched, we all saw the live TV, many journalists were embedded at NASA and interviewed the participants.
NASA is not the Borg, with a single mind, eg James Hansen and Roy Spencer both worked for NASA.
“-‘The 1964 paper I showed you researched shielding of the VA radiation. Others showed you data. It appears adequate.’
Appears? Based on what? That you think the missions had to have happened?”
You didnt look at the paper. No surprise.
The paper is well documented, full of real data, published by people who are experts in that field. Anyone can read it and critique it.
Unless one is already convinced of a conspiracy, I see no way to refute what is in this paper.
I pointed you to a figure. In it they show radiation levels predicted in the VA belts for Al shielding of various thicknesses. The levels for 1 hour of exposure are below 10 RADS for Al thicknesses similar to the shell of the capsule.
And the added shielding of all the capsule instrumentation would reduce this number further.
You need to look at original sources, and not rely on assertions in videos made by HOAX advocates.
“He also produced ‘Astronauts gone wild’ where in it, the behavior, body language and demeanor of the astronauts is incredibly suspicious”
Again a video by a MOON-HOAX fanatic.
Incredibly suspicious only if one already has a conspiracy mindset.
Only suspicious if one sees nefarious motives when motives cannot be determined.
Suspicious only if one is seeking and finding patterns in random noise that are not actually there.
Again, RW, it seems that when information has reasonable, plausible alternative explanations, you always ASSUME the HOAX explanation is MORE LIKELY.
“Its easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled”
-Mark Twain
Indeed it is, especially in this case.
Nate,
“Again a video by a MOON-HOAX fanatic.
Incredibly suspicious only if one already has a conspiracy mindset.
Only suspicious if one sees nefarious motives when motives cannot be determined.”
Yes, based on his own research and experience over many years with this issue he is full fledged believer it was a HOAX. I mean he has a tape given to him by NASA from NASA of the Apollo 11 crew faking a shot being half way to the Moon for crying out loud.
He considers this proof (by logical deduction) that Apollo 11 was faked since there is no logical or credible reason for why they would have done this (unless they couldn’t actually go half way to the Moon).
If this doesn’t at least make you take a step back and consider the possibility it actually could have been faked, then it’s hard to believe anything would. You could at least watch the interview and hear what he has to say about it all. And the videos of his I mentioned on youtube can be watched for free.
I’ve presented more than enough here that should at least have opened up the possibility for anyone with a reasonable mind that the missions could have really been faked. I think I’ll leave it there unless you want to discuss some other alleged refutations of it was a HOAX.
Ive presented more than enough here that should at least have opened up the possibility for anyone with a reasonable mind that there are alternative non-HOAX explanations for the evidence claimed to be supportive of a HOAX.
Again, I would recommend seeking out original sources to check out the validity of the assertions made by by advocates, whose videos need not meet the usual ethical standards of science or journalism publications.
RW,
‘Do you know he has actual footage from NASA of the Apollo 11 craft clearly faking a shot being half way to the Moon? ‘
Considering the time I wasted on the earlier video with the nothing-burger interview with ISS astronauts, I dont think I need to go hunt for that one.
Don’t you wonder why this footage, if real, was sent only to a HOAX advocate, rather than the New York Times, NBC News, etc?
Wouldn’t that make more sense?
If only you would apply as much skepticism to these You-tube videos as you do to NASA photos and videos..
‘unless you want to discuss some other alleged refutations of it was a HOAX.’
Ok, here is debunking of the “the Apollo 11 craft clearly faking a shot being half way to the Moon?”
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html
Can you rebut this debunking?
Particularly problematic is this:
“Space writer and former NASA engineer James Oberg points out an obvious problem in Sibrel’s scenario: if the astronauts were indeed in low Earth orbit, they would have been in the necessary line-of-sight for ground stations for only 4-5 minutes at a time. It was impossible in the 1960s to transmit television from low Earth orbit for the 20-30 minutes he says the fakery lasted. On the other hand, if the spacecraft really was where the crew said it was — 130,000 miles from Earth — it would stay at the same point in the sky (relative to other celestial objects) for hours at a time.”
Your response to this?
Nate,
I’ve actually seen the footage. More than once. If they were really half way to the Moon shooting the Earth out the window the camera would be at the window (pointed towards the Earth) — not far back away from the window, which is clearly evident when the lights come on at the end.
NASA has tried to explain it away by claiming they were just rehearsing, but there would be no need to fake the shot to rehearse if the real Earth was out the window.
All you’re doing is presuming the missions couldn’t have been faked and seeking out information confirming this presumption. You’re not actually thinking for yourself and critically examining anything.
RW,
I actually looked at the Sibrel film.
The biggest problem I have with it is that it makes numerous claims in the vein of ‘this is how it was done’ with a convincing English female narrator.
But none of those claims are backed up by any evidence whatsoever.
The ‘problems’ with the images of Earth are not obvious at all.
Then there are the real issues with converting from a low orbit view of Earth, with motion, to a far away view of Earth, that just don’t work.
It is just a bunch of empty assertions. I fail to see why you are convinced by this nonsense.
Linked right below I mean.
“Werner van Braun, who built the rocket, also prior said travelling to the moon was impossible, because the size of the rockets needed to carry enough fuel to get them there, would need to be unfeasibly large (way larger than the Saturn 5 rocket was). He also recanted this when Apollo started.”
I am curious. Do you know how large the Saturn V rocket was?
My understanding of Saturn V is that it’s biggest rocket to ever to successful launch.
The Russian had bigger one but it failed to launch and it was never successfully launched
So bigger than Shuttle.
SLS is eventually suppose to lift more payload than Saturn V- but first version only planned to lift 70 tons to Low Earth Orbit.
Saturn V more than 100 tons.
Lots people watched the Saturn V launches. They also felt force of their take off.
And they were expensive to make and made total of about 20 of them.
So question is what were the Saturn V rockets other than a Moon rocket?
Their large size could be said to be somewhat useless for any other purpose.
And because we want to go to Moon and Mars, we making such large rockets, again.
I think the rocket was about 300 some odd feet tall, but you’d have to look it up. The rocket itself was definitely real and not faked. And was quite impressive indeed. It’s just that if we take van Braun’s earlier word and claims, it would not have been anywhere near big enough to carry enough fuel to get to the moon (let alone back). I think he said it would have to be bigger and taller than the size of NY’s Empire State building or something like this. van Braun was more or less a Nazi war criminal, so getting him to cooperate with the Apollo program I doubt would have been a problem.
Most people who think it was hoax think the astronauts were almost definitely on the rocket when it launched. I’m not so sure myself.
There is absolutely no question that if the Apollo missions were faked that van Braun knew.
RW
This article covers your Wernher von Braun angle on this.
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-wernher-von-braun-confirmed-that-rockets-cant-leave-earth.t9796/
If you were really concerned about the Moon landings being faked because the Saturn V did not have the power to make it there you could easily prove this with calculations. You could take the estimated fuel supply in each stage. Calculate the energy available for thrust and see if it could reach speeds of escape velocity. Your points are not very good at all. What I don’t like about these Conspiracy theories is they lure people like you with very simple ideas and zero depth. They appeal to you on an emotional and not rational level. They NEVER have any actual calculations. Like the Van Allen Belts. Do they ever give you actual radiation exposures that you can see.
Norman,
Where was it claimed by myself that van Braun claimed such size was needed to reach escape velocity? The issue, according to van Braun, as I understood it, was reaching escape velocity AND having enough fuel to then make the journey all the way to the Moon would require so much fuel the rocket would have to be unfeasibly large and far larger than the Saturn 5 rocket was. Clearly the Saturn 5 rocket reached escape velocity, so I don’t get your point.
“What I dont like about these Conspiracy theories is they lure people like you with very simple ideas and zero depth. They appeal to you on an emotional and not rational level. They NEVER have any actual calculations. Like the Van Allen Belts. Do they ever give you actual radiation exposures that you can see.”
Well, we’re talking about van Braun himself here and what he said. The man was brilliant. There’s no doubt about this.
Look, I would like to believe the Moon missions really happened, but based on all my research, critical thinking, and analysis of all the available evidence, logic, and behavior of those involved, I’ve come to the conclusion they didn’t and were faked. With very high confidence. I’m not absolutely sure of course, but fairly close to being sure (for as sure as one can be with some of this nature). You’re free to examine the evidence and make up your own mind.
RW, you’ve claimed researched, analyzed and done crtical thinking, but show none of these actions, evidence from them, nor the ability to do so. All you have done is parroted from some dubious sources, while ignoring or rationalizing away comments from people like me who did work on Apollo and other missions or video sources.
You could have taken GBaikie’s advice and done the calculations for the Saturn V. Or you could, if you understood the physics of radar tracking and data acquisition in a real time environment how that was spoofed. How does a single satellite spoof those X, Y and Z coordinates and the specific signal delays to add the spoofed distance and speed of that moving vehicle?
If the space missions were spoofed when did they occur? Was it with Apollo 1 or the later missions? How did they spoof Apollo 13?
All you’ve shown so far is your ignorance of the actual parameters needed to be spoofed and the numbers of people effected and involved. Without that its just bias confirmation from someone too ignorant of the details to know what it would take to spoof one, ;et alone all Apollo missions.
The only one spoofed so far is you by believing your probably spoofed sources.
RW
Von Braun first conjecture was almost certainly correct if it was based on the erroneous idea of a single stage rocket and his ideas of cost.
However what he said was
He probably saw the light later when the ideas about multi-stage designs made the truth of getting to the moon possible and quite practical with the technology of the day, given the amount of money the US was willing to put in the project.
Power to weight ratio (or more properly thrust to weight ratio) optimized for each stage makes one heck of a difference.
[my bold]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket
And here is another opportunity to add to the numbers of people who would have to in on the conspiracy.
How many rocket design engineers and contractors and management of these people would become aware, or could figure out that the design of the rocket was FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, and would simply not work?
Pffft!
tom0mason,
Yes, just because van Braun earlier thought/said it wasn’t possible or feasible doesn’t mean he/they couldn’t have developed the tech on a smaller rocket to accomplish it in the years afterward leading up to Apollo 10 or 11.
Again, van Braun’s comments about this are not a smoking gun and don’t prove the missions were faked. However, they do arise a great deal of suspicion, given everything else, especially since he seemed so emphatic about it at the time he made those statements. And this is my central point with it, i.e. that’s it’s highly suspicious.
The same goes for what Van Allen himself said in 1959 in that it doesn’t preclude that they could have found a way to protect from the radiation by the time of Apollo 10 or 11.
My ultimate conclusion that the missions were faked has fully taken all of this into consideration.
tom0mason,
“Von Braun first conjecture was almost certainly correct if it was based on the erroneous idea of a single stage rocket and his ideas of cost.”
Actually, what van Braun said was based on 3 separate rocket design — not a single rocket. He said each of the three rockets would have to be enormously large and far larger than the Saturn V rocket was. So he was apparently making the statements about a multi-stage design at the time. Again, it’s all very suspicious. Or should be.
RW,
The Van Allen radiation belts are lethal but not instantly so. Furthermore they are “Belts” so exposure can be limited by not lingering where the radiation levels are high.
Take a look at the Chernobyl project:
https://www.bechtel.com/projects/chernobyl-shelter-and-confinement/
Thirty meters away from the melted core of the reactor the radiation is dangerous so the confinement structure was built 300 meters away. The point is that increasing the distance 100 times reduces the radiation 10,000 times thanks to the “Inverse Square Law”.
The Van Allen radiation belts may be dangerous but you can use the “Inverse Square Law” to reduce the effect.
I never claimed (or thought) the radiation in Van Allen belts were instantaneously lethal. Even if they were lethal from relatively short exposure, the person exposed wouldn’t die anywhere near right away.
RW
See https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm for how the radiation hazard was assessed and actual measured levels from each Apollo mission.
Also of note this the many pounds of Gold foil that much of the Apollo capsule was enveloped in. And also note when the astronauts were on the moons surface their suits offered a good measure of protection. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L )
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbDZS6B2V4M
This shows otherwise
https://youtu.be/lNiscigIgBc
That video was mostly accurate but there were parts that were wrong.
For example you don’t use hydrogen rich materials for beta particle shielding. Hydrogen rich materials are useful shielding materials for protons and neutrons.
Electrons are easily absorbed in a sheet of paper unless they have high energy. The Duke university Free Electron Laser generates relativistic electrons at ~1 GeV. As stated in the video high energy electrons can generate Bremsstrahlung (aka “Braking Radiation”). This is simply the conversion of the kinetic energy of high energy particles into photons.
To shield against 1 GeV electrons we used a combination of four feet of lead and twelve feet of concrete. So why did the Apollo missions not need that kind of shielding?
The Van Allen belts are made up of low energy particles (0.1–10 MeV) that are much less penetrating and dangerous than high energy particles.
Excellent video.
Very concise, but very informative.
Will skeptics pay attention to it?
Very good video. But it won’t change a denier’s mind. Anything that disproves their conspiracy theory is, if nothing else, just labeled as part of the conspiracy, so the denial can remain.
You don’t know beans about radiation safety.
NASA does.
BTW GC, did you find that missing 150 W/m2 yet? It’s been a few years now…
David, please stop trolling.
Norm,
Can I call you Norm?
” theories are intentionally developed to see how many people can be caught by them. I think they are done on multiple topics. It is a way to control the Public. ”
Again! A very intuitive statement!
Psssst.. The GHE is one of them, and to my shame a Canadian is complicit in pushing that one…
The existence of the greenhouse effect is (besides the planet being warmer than the Sun can make it) obvious when viewed from space:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
No hypothesis without a greenhouse effect can explain this curve.
In fact, because of collision-induced ab.sorp.tion, where two or more molecules that collide temporarily have quantum states that can absorb in the infrared, any planet with an atmosphere has a GHE.
DA, you are making the same bogus assumption. You assume back-radiation results in raising surface temperatures.
You just don’t understand the relevant physics.
You assume back-radiation results in raising surface temperatures.
Of course it does: a body (the surface) that absorbs energy (radiation from the atmosphere) has an increase in temperature.
See the SB Law.
This thread, thanks to RW, quickly degenerated into what may be a candidate for one of the worst comment threads this year on a science-related website.
And then Mr. Apple showed up.
His tedious “know it all” lectures usually make a thread worse.
But here, Apple’s “sermons” put everyone to sleep, as usual, but after they woke up, they completely forgot about RW and the fake 1969 moon mission.
Oh come on…lighten up. I’ve enjoyed it.
BTW, you don’t have to agree with me. You can think the Moon missions really happened. It’s perfectly OK with me.
We all have experience of temperature data we have our own sense of is the world getting warmer or not but few have been to the moon or are likely to go there. I have never experienced any inflation of temperatures during my lifetime the scale of temperatures is the same as when I was younger, weather while variable remains within certain limits.
I feel I have experienced an increase in temperature because of the UHI because I live in a small flat in an area in which there are many of these tightly packed together, it can be extremely hot during the summer and nearly everyone has there windows open at this time.
Roy Spencer
“The moon takes 29.5 Earth days to rotate, so that means two weeks of daylight followed by two weeks of darkness for almost everywhere on the moon. ”
Merci / Thanks for writing it.
I never would have even imagined that still so many US people are gullible followers of this fake news of faked Moon landings.
The very best stuff was written by commenter DMT:
“With the moon landings it was elaborately staged simply to demonstrate superiority over the Russians.”
who by the way manages to ignore that if it had been faked, the Russians NEVER AND NEVER would have missed the chance to ridicule the USA worldwide!
Strange people… but people managing to deny Moon’s rotation about its axis after all aren’t less.
Bindidon says: “Strange people… but people managing to deny Moon’s rotation about its axis after all aren’t less.”
Bindidon, the Moon orbits Earth, but it does not “rotate on its axis”. If it had axial rotation, we would see all sides of it. The fact that we only see one side indicates it is not “rotating on its axis”. It’s the same motion as a racehorse.
Be cautious not to attack people just because you do not understand. That would make you appear smug and ignorant.
In order to discuss the rotation ‘on its axis’ question you must agree on a reference frame. If your reference frame is the the earth, you get one perspective. If it’s the remainder of the universe, you get a different perspective.
Randy, the reference frame is its axis, as in vertical line through its center of gravity.
A racehorse runs an oval track, but is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
El Stupido does not understand the inertial reference frame which is why he has everything backwards. He rotates his reference frame at whatever angular velocity his object rotates. No education is physics or kinematics will do this.
This is why Postma through him under the bus by declaring the moon does indeed rotate about its own axis. Poor JD has not visited his site since. LMAO.
Child, when making comments you might want to try to make sense. A sensible comment can be difficult, especially if you’re uneducated. It might be best to get an adult to help you.
Not stealing another person’s name will help also.
I’m more curious about how it is that you think you’re right, when every scientist on the planet knows the Moon is rotating.
Where does that attitude come from?
DA makes his own “reality”: “…every scientist on the planet knows the Moon is rotating.”
DA, just because you imagine something, and bang it out on your keyboard, that does NOT make it reality.
Grow up, and learn some physics.
You avoided the question.
How is it you think you’re right when every astronomer on the planet thinks the Moon is rotating?
You changed your bogus claim from “every scientist” to “every astronomer”.
Keep changing, maybe someday you will get to reality.
“Not stealing another persons name will help also.”
Says the clown who stole his name from Harry Dale Huffman. Poor JD can never win.
“Stupid”, keep trying to distort reality. It’s not working for you, and that makes you even more desperate.
Nothing new.
You changed your bogus claim from every scientist to every astronomer.
Here’s what the organization that has been to the Moon says:
“Misconception
“The Moon does not rotate.
“Reality
“The Moon does spin on its axis, completing a rotation once every “27.3 days; the confusion is caused because it also takes the same “period to orbit the Earth, so that it keeps the same side facing us.”
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/
Why should I believe you and not them?
You could try thinking for yourself?
JDHuffman says:
Randy, the reference frame is its axis
An axis is not a reference frame.
David, when it comes to this “moon rotation” debate, “reference frames” just become an excuse for people to miss the point. It’s more fundamental than that. More simple, more straightforward.
*ALL* of physics is about reference frames.
An axis is not a reference frame. That shows you the level of understanding we’re getting from some people here.
#2
David, when it comes to this “moon rotation” debate, “reference frames” just become an excuse for people to miss the point. It’s more fundamental than that. More simple, more straightforward.
(Here’s why):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791
JD,
How in does a vertical line define a 3D frame of reference frame exactly, JD?
3D as in x, y z axes? Just one axis wont do it.
Nate, you might need some credibility before expecting a response.
‘you might need some credibility”. A new one!
= ‘learn some physics”
= ‘more falsehoods and misrepresentations’
= JD has no answers, again!
Bailing out is a habit for him.
Wrong again, DA.
Once I know that I am dealing with clowns, I prefer to not waste too much time. Behave like an adult, face reality, and be willing to learn, and I won’t feel like I’m wasting my time.
So is an endless need to insult.
David, please stop trolling.
Wrong, the Moon rotates once on its axis, in the same time it takes to complete one orbit of the Earth.
Easy enough to prove.
Get a person to stand in the centre of a room.
Get somebody else to sidestep around them, get the person in the middle, to slowly spin, so they can see the person’s face, all the time.
You stand still at one side of the room.
You’ll see back of the person’s head, who’s “orbiting” the person in the middle, at the same time you’ll see the face of the person in the middle. Half an “orbit” later, you’ll see the reverse.
Adam, an easier visualization is a racehorse running around an oval track. Inside the track, you only see one side of the horse. Outside the track, you would see both sides of the horse. The horse is obviously not rotating on its axis.
It’s the same motion as the Moon, “orbiting” but NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Grab hands of a kid and swing them.
Where is the axis of the spin?
Does the kid or the moon spin on it’s axis?
Or are you acting as the axis of the spin of revolution
of the kid?
The issue is not the revolution of the orbit of the Moon or of
the revolution of the kid.
Earth not holding onto Moon with ‘arms’.
Moon rotates about an axis tilted 6 degrees from its orbital axis, which defines its North and South poles.
Hard to do that holding a kid with arms.
Apparently NASA is planning a mission to land at the South pole (or fake it).
Anyone wanna tell me how they figure out where its South Pole is?
“Anyone wanna tell me how they figure out where its South Pole is?”
With Earth, at equinox, the south pole is 90 degrees south [or perpendicular] to the solar plane.
Probably same with Moon.
When is it spring or fall on the Moon?
gbaikie,
The kid spins on his own axis, or center of gravity. He spins one time per 1 revolution.
The issue is people don’t comprehend simple kinematics.
gbaikie presents another example debunking the Moon rotation, and notice how the clowns seek to pervert reality.
It’s amazing to watch.
‘With Earth, at equinox, the south pole is 90 degrees south [or perpendicular] to the solar plane.’
Huh?
Perpendicular to solar plane?
If we land at the Moon’s pole, a point amongst the stars directly overhead, wiil be stationary.
Point is, poles and rotational axis are defined by looking at the stars apparent motion from the surface of the planet or moon. And observing that their motions are circles around two points in the sky that define the rotational axis.
–Nate says:
July 14, 2019 at 1:47 PM
With Earth, at equinox, the south pole is 90 degrees south [or perpendicular] to the solar plane.
Huh?
Perpendicular to solar plane?
If we land at the Moons pole, a point amongst the stars directly overhead, will be stationary.–
As will be the case with anything on solar plane [or parallel to it] and perpendicular to solar plane.
Except the small movement due to the parallax effect plus lunar axis tilt of about 1.5 degrees.
You can’t see the difference, you have to measure it over long period of time.
“Point is, poles and rotational axis are defined by looking at the stars apparent motion from the surface of the planet or moon. And observing that their motions are circles around two points in the sky that define the rotational axis.”
Yes, of course, with Earth spinning every day, it’s rather dramatic. And fairly simple to get a stop action photo of it.
gbaikie,
I suggest you bring this topic up with your buddy Joseph Postma. Smart guy. He already threw JD under the bus regarding the moon rotation business. You are next.
HGS, please stop trolling.
Ger*an says:
Bindidon, the Moon orbits Earth, but it does not rotate on its axis.
If the Moon didn’t rotate around its axis Earthlings wouldn’t always see the same side of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Wrong, DA. You’ve got it backwards. The fact that we only see one side proves it is not rotating on its axis.
Consider the simple example of the racehorse. The horse is not rotating on its axis as it runs the track. If the horse actually had axial rotation, you would see all sides of it from both inside and outside the track.
This is just another example of you refusing to see reality. You much prefer your pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
Yes, the racehorse is rotating about its own axis.
First the horse run/looks north, then west, then south then east then finally north again.
A view of 360 degrees has swept across the horse’s field of vision, just as if the horse stood still and rotated its head by 360 degrees (if it could).
Wrong again, DA. The horse is changing directions. The motion is translational. There is no axial rotation.
You just don’t understand the relevant physics, and can’t learn.
Nothing new.
There is no axial rotation
Then translational motion is parallel to the racetrack.
It’s possible for the horse to have translational motion AND complete the track always facing the same direction. That would be the case where it’s not rotating — its head always points north, where north is its direction out of the starting gate.
(A horse isn’t the best analogy, because it can’t run sideways. So consider a human instead.)
That would like be the right-hand side of this animation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The left hand side of the animation has the horse/human rotating about its axis while it goes around the track.
PS: Your Trump-like need to insult everyone betrays a lack of confidence.
DA, learn what “translational motion” involves. then get back to me.
And your whining about getting insulted is due to your inability to learn combined with your propensity for whining.
Grow up.
Let the horse run in a straight line.
Do you agree it can do so either while rotating or without rotating?
JD squeals:
“The horse is changing directions. The motion is translational!”
WRONG!
Definition of translation:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Draw a line through the horse from tail to head. That line is rotating. So NO TRANSLATION.
Poor JD. So ignorant of simple kinematics.
SO what is YOUR definition of translation??? This will be amusing.
The horse is not rotating on its axis, either running a straight track or an oval track.
Do you agree that you don’t know beans about the relevant physics?
Poor JD is confronted with the truth, and he does not answer the question about translational motion. He punts.
The horse is either translating or rotating on its own axis. Those are the two choices. We KNOW a race horse is not translating while running a circular track, so it has to be rotating on its own axis.
Please define translation, JD. Still waiting…..
DA, you still haven’t answered the question.
If the horse actually had axial rotation, you would see all sides of it from both inside and outside the track.
Why?
==
Does the Earth orbit and rotate, or just orbit?
David, why would you ask a question that had already been answered?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364075
Oh, you’re just trolling. Understood.
JDHuffman, there would be no way for us to see the same side of the moon all the time if the moon did NOT rotate on its axis…at exactly the same angular speed as it revolves around the earth. 🙄
Brent, you are confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”. There are two different motions.
Consider the simple example of a racehorse, as discussed above.
Yes, orbiting and rotating are two different motions. Ger*an/JDH doesn’t understand that they can happen together.
For the Moon they are both happening. Brent is right — if the Moon didn’t rotation we wouldn’t always see the same side of it. This animation on tidal locking makes this clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Wrong DA, I understand quite well that both motions can happen together. Thanks for the false accusation.
The Earth both orbits and rotates on its axis. The Moon only has one motion, orbiting.
You don’t know beans about the relevant physics. You recently confused Earth’s orbital position with seasonal tilt. And, once again you link to that same graphic from pseudoscience. You just can’t think for yourself.
“Orbiting” is NOT “rotating on an axis”. A racehorse appears to be rotating on its axis, if viewed from outside the track. But, the horse is only orbiting. Changing direction is not the same as axial rotation.
You just can’t learn. That might explain your inability to hold a job.
A racehorse appears to be rotating on its axis, if viewed from outside the track.
The racehorse also appears to be rotating from its own reference frame, as the horse first runs and looks north, then west, then south, then east. Same as if it stood in place and rotated its head by 360 degrees.
DA, you are dedicated to being a clown.
An airplane flying around the Earth would “appear” to turn upside down, viewed from space. But the plane is never upside down. The plane is not flying upside down, the racehorse is not rotating on its axis, and the Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
You just can’t understand the relevant physics, but you believe you do.
And, that makes you a dedicated clown.
Let’s stick with the horse.
Do you agree that the horse’s field of vision sweeps through 360 degrees as it runs around the track?
Yes, the horse is changing directions. The motion is translational. There is no axial rotation.
Do you agree that you don’t know beans about the relevant physics?
If the person’s view sweeps through 360 degrees, then it is rotating. Around a racetrack its undergoing translational motion with rotation.
A person could also go around the track with its head always pointed in the same direction. That’s translational motion without rotation.
The first is on the left. The second is on the right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
You didn’t answer the question.
JD moans:
“Yes, the horse is changing directions. The motion is translational. There is no axial rotation!.”
WRONG. With translational motion there is absolutely no change of direction per the definition of translation. JD exhibits his ignorance of simple kinematics.
Does the Earth orbit and rotate, or just orbit?
David, why would you ask a question that had already been answered?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364075
Oh, you’re just trolling. Understood.
JDHuffman says:
The Earth both orbits and rotates on its axis
Now imagine slowing down the Earth’s rotation rate to 1 complete rotation per year.
Then the Earth is still rotating, and it’s still orbiting.
In this case, would someone at the Sun always see the same side of the Earth?
The answer is: no.
If you understood the argument, you would know that the motion “orbiting”, as described/explained here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
would necessarily involve someone at the center of the orbit always seeing the same side of the orbiting object. That is for “orbiting” only, without axial rotation combined.
So, an object that is “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”, even with only one axial rotation per orbit, necessarily involves someone at the center of the orbit seeing all sides of the orbiting object.
Understand the argument yet, Fatvid?
Would someone at the Sun always see the same side of the Earth?
Yes they would.
Get two spherical objects — one for the Sun and one for the Earth.
Rotate the Earth while orbiting it around the Sun. Then the conclusion is clear.
Or, just look at the left-hand side of this animation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Ignore the Earth; focus on the Moon’s axis, the small white circle. Do you see the black patch rotating around the axis? Do you see the black patch facing the stars and universe? Do you see it facing a field of 360 degrees of the stars and universe?
That’s rotation while orbiting, just as the Earth would do if its rotation rate was one cycle per year.
Re-read my comment until you understand.
Your comment is wrong.
NASA says the Moon rotates. And you think I’m supposed to disregard that for your opinion, from someone who is afraid to comment here using their real name, who doesn’t even understand linear momentum, taught in the 2nd week of freshman physics?
That’s not going to happen.
#2
Re-read my comment until you understand.
(You’re as wrong about the moon’s motion as you were about my understanding of linear momentum)
Brent,
Pay no attention to JD. He does not even understand what an orbit is.
“Stupid” believes using my name will make him appear wise.
Like all his other beliefs, this one fails also.
Nothing new.
LMAO. JD stole his name from some PhD named Harry Dale Huffman. This was when his previous identity (Ger-Anne) was banned by Spencer. He thought he was being clever by using Huffman’s name after Huffman appeared in a discussion on Postma’s blog. What a moron!
“Stupid” has a vivid imagination. That fits in well with his adolescent fascination with personalities…and school buses….
“Stupid has a vivid imagination.”
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/#comment-34945
JD. Always on the losing end.
HGS, please stop trolling.
“Walking around near the South Pole … would be treacherous because with the sun low on the horizon, and no atmosphere-scattered sunlight to help illuminate the landscape, any low spots would be almost totally black — some might look like bottomless holes. Venturing into larger craters would require artificial lighting.””
I think walking around south pole would be quite different depending upon the particular place. I tend think there would be more variation of appearance due to various potential combination of light.
The moon is consistent in some ways, which is roughly summed up as it’s ancient and impactors have had enough the time to shape it and leave their mark upon it for billions of years. Or in time one gets more small impactors. Or the new in terms of millions of years is the smaller impactors. A “enemy” has mostly bombed the place with lot smaller bombs BUT also has used wide variety of bombs.
So not like a unbombed land which is bombed, but a thoroughly bombed land bombed again and again. It looks like bombed by a lot small bombs but it’s bombed a lot more small bombs than it appears.
But hills are going to look like hills with snow because of contrast if there is more region which not directly lit by the sunlight. And the bright hills could be dimly illuminate regions in shadow.
Or you could be region without the brightly lit hills.
And you also two sources of light, the very bright sun and big blue Earth. In terms of region of land, the Earth is constant- forever. The sunlight is constant in terms of one Earth day or during the time a person is awake, the sun is constant, and moves sort like grass grows- probably more the faster bamboo grows.
There is certainly a sameness quality to a location in terms human living by the hour or days, but you probably don’t need too far to find a different appearing landscapes. Though other than the ancient bombing of the land, the dominate aspect is the dust covering nearly everything. And with human activity in region, it will leave tracks in the dust which should quite visible from a distance if they are lighted.
What you could see in dark crater would depend upon how well your eyes are adjust to the darkness.
And humans could have “lunar night googles”, or the enhanced vision one might allow you see well within or into a dark crater.
Could part of spacesuit or a “hand held device”.
Anyhow, it’s going to fun adventure when we go to lunar polar regions. But even the Apollo sites would have been much different with “color TV” and/or smart phones and multimedia.
“Walking around near the South Pole … would be treacherous because with the sun low on the horizon, and no atmosphere-scattered sunlight to help illuminate the landscape, any low spots would be almost totally black….”
I recommend using a LED flashlight as the batteries last five times longer than with incandescent bulbs.
Fun fact: even on the moon you would enjoy a nice little greenhouse effect!
With the sun in the zenith you get the full amount of solar radiation of ~1368W/m2, reduced only by the lunar albedo of 0.13. Thus it is easy to calculate the maximum equatorial temperature, which is (((1-0.13)/1)*1368/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 380.6K.
However, average top temperatures on the equator are more about 394K, which is obviously warmer than it could be in theory. And as we all know, because we have been told so many times over, that can only be due to the GHE or GHGs respectively…
😉
Your calculation is simply wrong. For starters the Moon’s Albedo is not 0.13. To get the surface calculation right you have to know the IR emissivity of the Moon’s surface.
There are at least six people who have modeled the Moon’s surface temperature with great precision including our host Dr. Roy Spencer and this camel:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
LOL! You are quite a genius, aren’t you?
“For starters the Moons Albedo is not 0.13” – so you prefer 0.12 or 0.14? Just tell us, I am flexible in this regard.
In fact my post is about the basic mistake in the GH-formula as it is applied on Earth. Assuming perfect emissivity is wrong and always gives (calculative) GHEs, even on the moon. I should probably mark my posts with (i) for irony when it is applied, to make them square-proof.
Yes of course we will need to consider specific emissivity in the case of the moon (and anywhere else), the question is just how we can skip that with regard to Earth, as it is being done.
Beyond that it is completely pointless to average lunar surface temperatures arithmetically, like it is suggested in your link. Since emissions increase by the power of 4, only a geometric averaging allowing for this fact will make sense. Then, at least according to my calculation, average lunar surface temperature is about 276K.
Basic radiative physics explains the Moon’s average temperature very well:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
Grid-wise emissivity (of Earth) was considered in this calculation of the Earth’s greenhouse effect:
“In climate GCMs, radiative calculations
are typically performed at every grid box
once every two to three hours of simulated
time. These model calculations account for
the radiative properties, amount and vertical
distribution of atmospheric gases, clouds, and
aerosols, ground surface and atmospheric
temperature, as well as the surface reflectivity
and emissivity, solar zenith angle, and the
Sun-Earth distance. Solar heating and LW
cooling rates, the energy balance at ground,
and at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) are
the result of these radiative calculations that
define the energy balance of the Earth, and
also have a diagnostic role to document and
assess the climate model performance.”
Lacis et al, Science 330, 2010, p 356-359, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
Well, just “considering” it will hardly help, complex grids will not be required, and all will be useless if you enter the wrong parameters. With the dominant surface being water, which is pretty homogeneous and its well known hemispheric(!) emissivity (0.91), the whole thing becomes a non-brainer. That is, of course, if one seeks to do physics rather than fairy tales.
However, including a realistic surface emissivity for Earth would badly reduce the GHE, which I guess is non-desirable for a lot of people. And of course things get really ugly, once we take a critical look at clouds, and their positive(!) correlation to temperatures. No satellites required here, weather data tell it all. But that is another story..
https://www.scribd.com/document/414175992/CO21
However, including a realistic surface emissivity for Earth would badly reduce the GHE
Why?
Lacis et al did include realistic surface emissivities in their grids.
Which were ???
I don’t know exactly, but the emissivities come from work like this:
https://climatemodeling.science.energy.gov/publications/improved-representation-surface-spectral-emissivity-global-climate-model-and-its-0
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281980%29108%3C0663%3AAEPSFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
There are many papers along these lines.
@Leitwolf,
The Moon is non-Lambertian which means that the Albedo depends on the angle of incidence of the radiation.
At normal incidence the Albedo is 0.89 but at grazing incidence (Dusk and dawn) it is 0.39.
Ashwin Vasavada modeled this behavior using an 8th order polynomial while Tim Channon and I used trigonometrical functions:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
8th order polynomial — hilarious.
Standard radiative physics predicts exactly the Moon’s average temperature along its equator:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
It also predicts the temperature curve at all points along the sunny side of the equator.
It’s trivial to extend this to the entire surface.
The moons albedo is 0.11, according to N.A.S.A.:
https://is.gd/iwa59J
@ David Appell,
The Moon is non-Lambertian. See here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/ashwin-vavasada-lunar-equatorial-surface-temperatures-and-regolith-properties-from-the-diviner-lunar-radiometer-experiment/
It doesn’t matter – an average is good enough to the level you’re trying to calculate.
You’re trying to make this into some huge, complex calculation when there’s no point to it. Simple radiative physics explains the moon’s average temperature. We don’t need a result to 3 decimal places to know this.
@DA,
To claim that NASA says the Moon’s albedo is 0.11 is moronic. NASA’a expert on the Lunar Radiation Experiment is Ashwin Vasavada. Why do you refuse to read his paper that I linked on this thread.
You should be ashamed for mocking people who present facts that don’t agree with your “Feelings” and blind faith.
Space weather is the weather one would have to pay attention to and take mitigating action against on the moon. A solar flare sending out a powerful CME towards the exposed surface of the moon would ruin the day of everyone that was not protected if on the illuminated side.
That factor and the heat and cold extremes is one reason they are seriously considering putting any full time settlement in huge ancient lava tubes they believe are an abundant feature on much of the moon.
RW,
“n other words, its more robust and modern than what was allegedly used on Apollo, and it failed its tests? What does this tell you?”
That the engineers working on Apollo were luckier, or better , or both…
That’s the best response you can come with?
When I was a 15 y/0 kid and taking flying lessons I got to meet Neil Armstrong about a year after Apollo 11. Neil’s brother, Dean Armstrong, was a neighbor and Neal came to visit. I have no doubt they did it.
A few years before that I also got to meet Paul Tibbets when he visited his niece and her husband, who worked for Tibbets Mechanical and lived across the street from us.
rah, both Armstrong and Tibbets were real people. No one disputes that. I’m glad you got to meet them.
But, that does not “prove” the moon landings took place.
I’m also skeptical that it was a hoax, but there’s no need to present evidence that has no bearing on the issue.
And what makes you think that I, or anyone has some obligation to “prove” it happened to you? Or that I give a squat about what you think of my post involving meeting two historic figures. I expressed my belief it happened and was right there watching it the images on the TV stretched out on the living room floor. I’ve read about all the biographies or memories from the Astronauts that took part and met the man that stepped out on the lunar surface first. Armstrong flew the X-15. Both Aldrin and Armstrong flew combat in Korea with distinction. Collins was also a hot pilot. Every single one of them faced death multiple times before they ever got selected to be an astronaut.
Armstrong hated it! He hated the notoriety of being the first man on the moon because it robbed him of his true love of flying the machines and on hands problem solving in the realm of aeronautical Engineering. Never again would he be allowed to fly as a test pilot again, let alone strap a rocket on his butt and take it for a ride.
Chaffee, White, and Grissom were real people too Were they’re deaths and funerals faked? Was Armstrong’s last second ejection from the practice lander a fake?
No! In my book every single one of you “skeptics” of the premier accomplishment of NASA attack the ethics and integrity of every single person directly involved in the program. I’ll take the word of a Collins, Armstrong, Aldrin, Bean, Gordon, Conrad, Lovell. Swigert, Haise, Shepard, Rosa, Mitchell Scott, Worden, Irwin and the plethora of steely eyed rocket men and engineers and others directly involved in that program and you can continue to besmirch the word of literally 100’s that had first and knowledge as you do.
rah, easy buddy. Perhaps you missed my admission “I’m also skeptical that it was a hoax…”
I’m not attacking your heroes. But the entity “NASA” has seriously tainted itself. Who knows when the internal corruption began, but it was evident by the 1980s. NASA obviously favored politics and budgets over human life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uljATTG58TY
You get to believe what you want, and others get to believe what they want.
Or, do you favor Tolatarianism?
From WUWT. Great link to the last few minutes before landing in real time.
https://www.firstmenonthemoon.com/
The corruption began or at least became obvious during the era of the “shuttle”. But of course there were always small things like NIH having to do with NASA not giving fair consideration for technology Not Invented Here.
Yea, I served on hazardous duty for 12 years in the military because I want a totalitarian system. There is a 30′ flag pole I installed in my front yard. Below the Stars and Stripes flies a Gadsden flag. That answer your question about my fundamental belief in our system of government as it was intended? Besides I said skeptics can believe what they want but I will take the word of those that were there that say they did it.
Nobody is saying those guys were perfect. A read of Collin’s book ‘Carrying the Fire’ makes it clear he didn’t much care for Aldrin. Heck back when Armstrong first started test flying he was flying a familiarization flight of the dry lake beds with Yeager. Yeager told him not to touch down on a particular lake bed and Armstrong did it anyway and got stuck. All of those astronauts that had been pilots were hot shot competitors. Of course Schmitt was not a pilot and it pissed all the pilots off that a geologist bumped a pilot off a mission.
‘I will take the word of those that were there that say they did it.’
Its a good point Rah. These were 24 guys with lots of guts, character, and credibility.
They were direct eye witnesses to the events of 50 y ago. Quite different from ‘internet experts’.
I would just ask the skeptics whether testimony from these 24 guys matters?
It would matter a great deal if their testimony was at murder trial, and you had to decide if someone was guilty of murder, or not, based on their eye-witness testimony, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes?
I’m sure these guys are just great. But when it comes to protecting the “interests “of their country of course they will lie. Just like politicians, the military, spies etc etc.
Believe otherwise and you will believe all the so-called “concerned” scientists that global warming is real.
Yeh, and of course during the height of the cold war with each side fighting to be the first on the moon the Russians colluded with the USA to keep mum about the deception the US pulled off. Right?
DTW
I’m sure we went to the moon. I am equally sure that human caused climate change is not about the climate at all, but is a means to reach a political/social end. An end that no freedom loving person, including me, wants to see us reach.
What “political/social end” is gained if you drive an electric car instead of a gasoline-powered car (besides saving money)?
What end is gained if your electricity comes from renewable sources instead of coal or natural gas? Your toaster won’t care.
Ah. give it a break! The government would control the energy more directly eliminating the free market system by limiting the sources to those that require continued government subsidies to remain operational. That is why they want to outlaw “fossil fuels”! Renewables can’t compete on a level playing field in a capitalist system. Several various high UN officials have directly stated what the objective of “climate change” is, and it has nothing to do with climate.
DA
Just the latest in a long list of admissions that climate change is not about the climate at all:
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/12/aocs-chief-of-staff-admits-green-new-deal-about-implementing-socialism-it-wasnt-originally-a-climate-thing-at-all-its-a-change-the-entire-economy-thing/
rah: climate change is about certain molecules in the atmosphere absorbing IR.
That’s just basic physics.
rah says:
Ah. give it a break! The government would control the energy more directly eliminating the free market system by limiting the sources to those that require continued government subsidies to remain operational.
Fossil fuels already have the largest subsidies, because the govt allows them to pollute for free.
This costs Americans a few hundred billion dollars a year.
So tell me again about a “free market.” To you a free market clearly means anyone being allowed to dump their trash anywhere. I’m going to save on garbage fees by throwing my trash bags over your fence and into your yard. I’ll save lots!
+1 to David Appell.
‘But when it comes to protecting the ‘interests’ of their country of course they will lie.’
What interests? Lie for their country about a PR stunt during the Cold War, which has now been over for 30 y?
Implausible.
Why not? I bet you believe that LHO shot JFK on his own initiative.
Dr. Roy said:
“To avoid the problem of a moon base being plunged into darkness for 14 days at a time, with temperatures falling to 280 deg. F below zero, a moon base would probably be located near the South Pole, where there are locations that are almost always sunlit, and temperatures remain more moderate.”
Dr. Roy is a real scientist so why is he still using Fahrenheit? OK, just a pet peeve of mine.
Like I said, Dr. Roy is a scientist but lunar colonies will be designed by engineers. While there is something to be said for access to perpetual sunlight most serious Moon colonies will be underground and will be nuclear powered, probably by Molten Salt Reactors such as LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor).
An industrial scale lunar colony would be underground in the basalt bedrock to ensure that:
1. Temperature variations are tiny.
2. Micro-meteorites are not a problem.
3. There is no smelly, abrasive regolith.
4. No need for feeble PV (Photo-Voltaic) power.
Working on the Moon’s surface is dangerous and uncomfortable. Instruments and antennae may need occasional maintenance or upgrades but “Moon Walks” should be as rare as possible. Think of a lunar colony as something like “Outland” minus the windows and the drug crazed killers.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=sean+connery+outland&i=dvd&hvadid=2394244270&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvqmt=e&tag=mh0b-20&ref=pd_sl_7es531nrmm_e
Power to weight ratio will be an important factor when choosing a power plant to work on the Moon. Right now LFTRs win in this category but who knows what innovations could happen in the next 20 years?
No matter what the heat source, power plants need heat sinks too! Near surface Moon rock (depth > 1 meter) at most latitudes has a temperature ~240 Kelvin making it a great heat sink. LFTRs run at high temperatures so that Braxton cycle heat engines can be used with high thermal to electric conversion efficiency.
IMHO the most serious problem is low gravity. I suspect that humans will suffer serious health issues unless they spend several hours per day exercising in rotating gyms at one “Gee”.
–Like I said, Dr. Roy is a scientist but lunar colonies will be designed by engineers. While there is something to be said for access to perpetual sunlight most serious Moon colonies will be underground and will be nuclear powered, probably by Molten Salt Reactors such as LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor).
An industrial scale lunar colony would be underground in the basalt bedrock to ensure that:
1. Temperature variations are tiny.
2. Micro-meteorites are not a problem.
3. There is no smelly, abrasive regolith.
4. No need for feeble PV (Photo-Voltaic) power.–
I would say lunar solar power is not “feeble PV (Photo-Voltaic) power”
I would say if only harvest solar power about 25% of a 24 hour day, then I count that as “feeble PV (Photo-Voltaic) power”.
For an “industrial scale lunar colony” you might be correct.
But my starting point, is can make the Moon worth going to, for any kind of purpose.
And I think it’s possible that lunar water might be mineable.
And if lunar water is mineable, then one do lots of things on the Moon.
I am not vaguely a supporter of NASA goes the Moon mines lunar water and has lunar base- which a rather modest goal compared NASA or anyone establishing an industrial scale lunar colony.
I do support idea the NASA goes to Moon and sees if there could be some lunar water which could be mineable. By mineable I mean investment dollar spent to do it, and with expectation of a large return on investment, if done successfully.
So not an endless quagmire for tossing tax payer money at.
But if there is mineable lunar water, that means to getting to the Moon will cost a lot less money. And space agencies or other entities could have lunar bases, and maybe we get an industrial scale lunar colony [not government money “investing” in such a commercial enterprise].
NASA is being paid to explore Space and I wish it do this. Explore Moon to determine if and where there could be mineable water, then start Mars exploration program- to determine if and where there might sites which could be viable settlements [again, commercially funded and not some governmental Potemkin village].
NASA would need various bases on Mars, but I don’t call them settlements, as I don’t call ISS, a settlement.
Lunar water? What is the value in lunar water? There is no economic or any other value in going to the moon. That is why somebody high up decided a long time ago to fake the landings.
Better to trick your enemies to waste valuable resources on a stupid exercise by staging the whole event.
“Lunar water? What is the value in lunar water?”
The value of lunar water is water has 8 times more mass
of oxygen than hydrogen.
And a liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen rocket engine uses about 6 times as much oxygen has compared to hydrogen.
Or want say 6 tons of LOX per 1 ton of LH2.
A ton of LOX on the Moon is worth about $1 million dollars and
a ton of hydrogen is worth about 4 million dollars.
If lunar water is worth about $500 per kg or 1/2 million dollars
per ton.
One could sell LOX at $1000 per kg and Liquid Hydrogen at 4000 per kg. Or 7 kg of rocket fuel is 6 kg of LOX and 1 Kg of LH2:
6000 + 4000 = 10,000 / 7 is rocket fuel at $1,428.57 per kg.
With leaving Earth it requires about 9 kg of rocket fuel to lift 1 kg of payload to orbit. With Moon it require 1 kg of rocket fuel to lift 1 kg of payload to lunar orbit.
So in terms of cost of LOX to lunar orbit, 1 kg of rocket fuel: $1,428.57 + buying 1 kg of LOX: $1000.00 is $2,428.57.
add $1000 cost other costs and profit: $3,428.57 per kg of LOX in low lunar orbit.
How much does it cost to send LOX from Earth to lunar low orbit?
Somewhere around $10,000 per kg. How much does it cost to send LH2 to lunar low orbit, a bit more than LOX, say about 12,000 per kg.
Say brought LH2 from earth to low lunar orbit and costs 12,000 per kg. And Lunar LOX cost $4000 per kg
so 7 kg of rocket fuel costs: 12000 + 24000 and / 7 = $5,142.85 per kg of rocket fuel. Or you have 1/2 the cost as compared bringing LOX and Hydrogen to lunar orbit from Earth.
As comparison, say costs 10,000 per kg to ship rocket fuel to low lunar orbit, how much does cost to ship rocket fuel to lunar surface?
You again use 1 kg to ship 1 kg of rocket fuel: 10,000 + 10,000 = equals $20,000 kg
But if making lunar rocket fuel as above, it’s $1,428.57.
Now with Apollo lunar mission, one was existentially bringing a tank truck worth of rocket fuel to the Moon, in order to return the crew to Earth. Or most of mass had nothing to with crew or rovers, it was rocket fuel. So lunar landing was actually a crewed tanker truck landed on lunar surface.
And if have rocket fuel on the Moon, you don’t need to land tanker truck on the Moon in order to return to Earth.
To give some number, LEM:
Launch mass:
33,500 pounds (15,200 kg) std
36,200 pounds (16,400 kg) Extended
{that about it’s mass before lands on Moon}
Dry mass
9,430 pounds (4,280 kg) std
10,850 pounds (4,920 kg) Extended
{that it’s mass without rocket fuel}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
So that posted, so talk a bit more.
What I described was the simple stuff.
What is more important is re-using spacecraft.
Re-using rockets or spacecraft is pretty hard
with Earth launches.
SpaceX is the first to commercially reuse it’s first
stage rocket. It’s also starting process of re-using it’s
fairing [which protects your payload from atmospheric environment
of launching rocket into space]
https://www.space.com/spacex-boat-falcon-heavy-payload-fairing.html
SpaceX is reusing it’s dragon capsule, and had hoped to re-use the second stage rocket [which appears to me hopeless at this time].
Anyhow, Moon is much easier- if you have rocket fuel.
SpaceX is currently trying to reuse it’s First stage without much fuss between flights, for about 10 uses.
And there is no reason lunar spacecraft could not also be reused for +10 times. If if assume can reuse +10 times, one needs to lift 1/10th mass of spacecraft to Moon from Earth and 1/10th cost to make spacecraft.
The cost of LEM in 1960 dollars was about 50 million dollar- and even though inflate makes it + hundred million, one could probably get one costing about 50 million, but if used 10 times, it’s 5 million.
In terms of seat price, and round trip from Earth to Moon and back, it’s at least about 1/2 billion. If had rocket fuel on Moon
the seat price could 1/10th, 50 million dollars per seat [or less].
Current russian are charging NASA more than 70 million per seat to ISS. SpaceX say they could charge 20 million per seat.
So it could cost maybe twice the price of going to ISS.
But if have rocket fuel at $1,428.57 per kg on the moon, you also export things to Earth. So say exported 10 tons of lunar dirt.
So one would dramatically lower the price of lunar dirt on Earth.
You can buy lunar dirt on Earth, people spent more than $1000 per gram. And one buy lunar meteorite, somewhere around the price of gold [$50 per gram]. So one might lower price of lunar dirt to about [$10 per gram or 10,000 per kg, $10 million per ton].
Or you buy something like baseball card for say $20 with some lunar dirt with some details about it.
Now if only shipping 10 tons per year, lunar material still far rarer than cut diamonds. And there broad range of use for lunar material. You can’t create good fake lunar material- it’s unique and unique in terms of where it taken from on the Moon. So one could tiny bit of lunar material implanted in say $20 bills, and probably cost less than paper of the money {which is also special paper}. So a government could buy say 1 ton of spacial lunar dirt and that could enough to handle their currency needs.
Imagine a country with inflation problem. So their million dollar bill is worth less than $1 US dollar.
So they issue a 100 million dollar bill with lunar dirt, and handles their inflation problem, and costs them say 10 cents [US cents] in cost for lunar material. Or regardless of their idiocy, that bill will something people want because it’s got lunar dirt in it.
Or will be collectible long [centuries] after that government as been murdered.
@gbaikie,
Scientific “Lander” missions within the solar system are merely a prelude to industrial projects that will be driven by the profit motive.
Mining water on the Moon will make sense as a raw material for local use but it won’t be exportable.
So what valuable products could be produced on the Moon at competitive prices? Right now I cannot think of anything but that may mean that I am lacking in imagination.
Asteroids on the other hand are rich in valuable metals such ar Nickel. With nuclear rockets, mining Nickel on asteroids might be profitable.
–gallopingcamel says:
July 14, 2019 at 11:23 PM
@gbaikie,
Scientific “Lander” missions within the solar system are merely a prelude to industrial projects that will be driven by the profit motive.
Mining water on the Moon will make sense as a raw material for local use but it won’t be exportable.–
I think you could export lunar water which is cheaper then lifting Earth water.
Earth water shipped to Mars orbit would be expensive.
Earth water shipped to ISS {LEO} is also expensive, but shipping Earth water to high earth orbit and Mars would be more expensive and so it’s easier for exported lunar to provide same or lower price as water shipped from Earth.
To give idea of what shipped to ISS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncrewed_spaceflights_to_the_International_Space_Station
Examples:
“After the spacecraft docks, the six crewmembers of Expedition 56 will spend the next few months unloading the cargo, which includes 1,170 lbs. (530 kilograms) of propellant, 115 lbs. (52 kg) of oxygen gas, 930 lbs. (420 kg) of water, and 3,450 lbs. (1,565 kg) of other “dry” cargo like food and other equipment, NASA public affairs officer Dan Huot told the media.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_(spacecraft)
NASA loves to talk about their recycling of water, but they also have lots of water shipped.
And costs more than $2000 per kg to ship water to ISS.
For crew going to Mars we will need water to drink and use and water is good shielding vs GCR radiation, so crew need water going to Mars and leaving Mars to return to Earth.
So say tens of tons per year in terms of Mars exploration, Mars settlements could require hundred of tons of water per year- and lunar water could cheaper than Earth water. But could sell Lunar LOX and could hundreds to tons for NASA Mars exploration, and thousands of tons LOX for people and cargo going to Mars for Mars settlements.
–So what valuable products could be produced on the Moon at competitive prices? Right now I cannot think of anything but that may mean that I am lacking in imagination.–
It depends at what point- as said lunar dirt, Lunar jewelry, lunar scientific samples [cores] which can indicate history of our solar system and general things of study about the Moon.
Some think mining PMG and shipping the various expensive metals t Earth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_group
“The six platinum-group metals are ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum. ”
The idea is some asteroid impact the Moon at lower velocity- around lunar escape being lowest. Most impactor hitting Moon or Earth are at 20 km/sec due largely to orbital velocity of sun of Moon and Earth and space rocks impacting at different orbital inclinations and crossing their orbital paths. Or the size gravity well only limits the minimal impact velocities. Comets generally impact at +30 km/sec.
Anyhow there are some asteroids with PMG, and many would impact at high velocity, but say 5% would impact at slower velocity in regards to the Moon.
This also applies to Mars, and small impactors would slowed by the atmosphere of Mars.
But say 50 years after lunar water mining, Moon could export pure silicon and lots of stuff including lunar iron/steel.
Some people think one can mine gold on Moon, but I think you don’t need to export lunar gold, rather you can store gold on Moon as any nation’s reserve currency. And of course gold is useful material used for lots of things.
–Asteroids on the other hand are rich in valuable metals such as Nickel. With nuclear rockets, mining Nickel on asteroids might be profitable.–
Well before 1998, I thought mining asteroids was only viable path to starting markets is space [or adding to the existing global satellite market], but then got Clementine results:
“NASA announced on March 5, 1998, that data obtained from Clementine indicated that there is enough water in polar craters of the Moon to support a human colony and a rocket fueling station”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_(spacecraft)
And I did a 180. Because I knew then, that water mined from space rocks was most valuable thing to mine. Or I knew if one buy water in Earth high orbit at $1000 per kg, that would change everything.
But water at $500 per kg at lunar surface, is a faster way to do it. Or problem with space rocks is got to sell a lot water, and lunar surface can start [within first several years] at 1000 tons of water per year. So start in year one, at about 100 tons and double production each year- but have to get to 1000 tons within 5 years.
With space rocks, it’s “get” 100,000 or million tons water ore- and how do sell it in a short time period. Or if need +100,000 tons of water in orbit, mining space rocks could work.
Part of mining lunar water to increase yearly volume of water demand requires lunar export of Lunar LOX to Lunar low orbit.
And if NASA is also busy exploring Mars, that also element of how one increase demand for lunar rocket fuel. And if got commercial lunar rocket fuel, this helps NASA get funding to explore Mars, and Mars settlement, make lunar rocket fuel makers, trillionaires, of course some are going to go bankrupt, and some may only be billionaires. But idea of people will only focus on the Moon, is silly, and a lunar trillionaire could get more involved with mining space rocks or be heavily connected with Mars settlements.
I roughly agree with Amazon, Bezos, but I think it could go a bit faster {at least I hope it does}.
But in terms exporting, I tend to think it works like countries, exporting and importing is small part of country total economy. So with Moon most business will be on the Moon, 10 to 25% might be related to lunar export.
More on this:
–Mining water on the Moon will make sense as a raw material for local use but it won’t be exportable.––
One thing about exporting Lunar LOX to low earth orbit is it’s a solution to a problem.
The problem is selling enough water.
And that is related to potential costs of mining lunar water.
And there is huge amount of doubt about the “mineablity” of lunar water.
Ideally the conditions could be that one sell water at less than $100 per kg.
But talking about starting prices of water as related potential market size of lunar water market in less than 10 year period from the start of investing capital in order to mine lunar water.
So price and how much can be sold within a time period, like, 1 year.
So if don’t have to process say 10 tons of water ore to get 1 ton of water [or less], that lowers the cost to mine lunar water, and so lunar water can be cheaper, and other part is how much one sell, and finally least of variabilities involved the Earth launch cost and cost to get anything to the Moon.
Another factor is the CEO and probably many CEOs involved. And quite simply, they need a lot talent. But I don’t think there is shortage of this.
But there is zero chance of talent in this regard in terms it being run by governmental agency.
So fundamentally critical but I assume it’s available in large supply. And there is not shortage capital- part of the talent of CEOs is being to get investment dollars.
But no one going do this, with basic exploration would could allow it.
So I would say exporting LOX is necessary if cost a lot to mine lunar water, and you can’t enough market for lunar water at the lunar surface within the first few critical years of starting it.
So exploration could indicate you don’t need to focus on exporting LOX. And/or could have business models that indicate don’t need to do it. But in long term [not useful, because hard part is near term] lunar water and lunar power is going to be quite cheap- $1 per kg of lunar water and $1 per kw hour of electrical power.
And export at that point will depend on what happening mining space rocks. And unrelated to what happening on Earth or Mars- the Moon will be cheaper than either.
And I think eventually, the Moon will import water from mining space rocks. Or water in space will be cheaper than water on Earth- eventually.
Sure. I bet you are the type of person who travels 100 mies to save 6 cents per gallon on gas. Real smart!
Anyways I think a critical aspect of mining lunar water, depends upon the lunar surface conditions in lunar polar region.
Roughly lunar polar regions extend to about 80 degree latitude [north or south].
Moon radius about 1736 km, circumference: 10910 km
10910 / 360 is 30.3 km is distance per 1 degree
10 degree = 303 km radius
At 85 degrees:
5 degrees = 151.5 km
Circumference at 85 degree:
952 km
So if had electrical grid encircling at 85 degree latitude
the length would be 952 km [591.5 miles].
And could make grid giving constant electrical without having
952 km distance of grid. I would it’s more of max length.
But if had such simple circle, then line which which 151 km long
could reach that circle anywhere within 80 degree latitude region.
Anyhow at say 0 degree, walk to 90 west or east longitude, it’s
952 km / 4 = 238 km.
So without including the topography [and have to] if had solar collector 238 west and east, the 3 points would give 100% sunlight.
OR if had solar collector at 0 and 180 one gets 100%, two points at distance of 303 km.
But if include topography one could have 2 or 3 site less than 100 km distance.
But anyhow if starting lunar water mining you probably want to start with one site location which gives 80% of more of sunlight during the first few years of planned operation. And possible a site might have places to put solar farms within 50 km distance and get 100 %. Another aspect is if put solar panels on higher pole, it possible it makes significant difference.
Other than power needs [and it’s possible you use nuclear power so above can mostly be ignored] another aspect is how water concentration is there is water ore. It’s possible there chunks of ice [100%]. Most assume there is not sheets of ice [100%].
One thing I could say, is there probably regions with less than 5% water concentration within the top 1 meter of regolith.
But that doesn’t mean much. Let’s say with a 1 square km there 10% of area which require less .5 meter surface to be removed has at most 5% water concentration as compared to 10% of 1 square km there are 10% of the region which have about 5% water concentrate within the top 20 cm [ 8″] of the surface. And add to that there is 50% there less water below .5 meter OR say there 50% chance there there more water than in the top 20 cm surface. It probably doesn’t much about what below .5 meter, unless there was say high certainty of higher than 20%.concentration below .5 meter.
So what about 10% of small region of 1 square km which has 5% water within 20 cm
So 1 square km 10% region at 20 cm depth, has 5%
1 million square meter, 100,000 square meter at .2 meter depth and 5%, is 20,000 cubic meters at 5% or 1000 cubic meter of water.
That not mineable unless there large region which about same [if better, why talk about first one].
My rule is need 10,000 tons, but in this situation it might be 20,000 tons. And how area is 20 square km. 3 km radius is about 28 square km. How about assume it’s in a +6 km diameter crater.
It might worst if in 100 km diameter crater in the middle of it.
What is the typical depth of 10 km [or less] diameter crater.
Google it:
“Moltke Crater, 7 kilometers in diameter, is an excellent example of a simple crater with a bowl-shaped interior and smooth walls. Such craters typically have depths that are about 20 percent of their diameters.”
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kiefer/Education/SSRG2-Craters/craterstructure.html
There is evidence that plenty of water exists on the Moon, particularly near the poles.
Mined water ice can be used directly to maintain food production (hydroponics). With a powerful energy source it will be easy to convert water into hydrogen gas for industrial use and oxygen for respiration.
GC wrote:
Dr. Roy is a real scientist so why is he still using Fahrenheit?
Obviously Roy wrote this for a popular audience and is also posting it here.
gbaikie said:
4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour.
OSHA has a tendency to exaggerate. The generally accepted LD50 acute radiation dose for gamma radiation is ~450 Rads.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6372928
I was brought up on Rads and REM (Roentgen Equivalent in Man) but these units have been replaced. 1 Gy (Gray) = 100 Rads.
Thus the LD50 dose for gamma rays is 4.5 Gy. Remember that this dose kills 50% of exposed persons within 30 days.
An acute dose is delivered in a short time scale such as less than one day. When a near lethal dose is spread out over weeks or months the exposed person may gain in life expectancy! What does not kill you makes you stronger!
When many thousands of people in Taiwan were exposed to lively gamma rays from Cobalt 60 it was expected that they would be more prone to cancer than the general population. A study found that short term cancer mortality fell by a factor of 30:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
Exposing cancer patients to near lethal doses of X-rays can improve their life expectancy:
http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/Sakamoto-2012_ANSconf-June23.pdf
Ironically Dr. Sakamoto lives in Sendai province in Japan.
–RW says:
July 13, 2019 at 12:49 PM
I think the rocket was about 300 some odd feet tall, but youd have to look it up. The rocket itself was definitely real and not faked.–
I am glad you agree it was real. Wiki:
” The Saturn V (pronounced “Saturn five”) was an American human-rated expendable rocket used by NASA between 1967 and 1973. The three-stage liquid-propellant super heavy-lift launch vehicle was developed to support the Apollo program for human exploration of the Moon and was later used to launch Skylab, the first American space station.”
The rocket was real but nobody ever went to the moon in one.
But why built a rocket which can go to the Moon and not use it to go the Moon.
And why stop making the rocket, once you finishing going to the Moon.
How can you make mistakes, like not sending astronauts who are not geologists, until later in program. Why send lunar cart, and decide you should use rover. How do lean things if whole thing going there is fake. Why would do Apollo 13 if fake.
Who has the vast skill of doing it- who has the creative talent to do that story. Why is all fiction so bad in comparison.
If had such creative story telling genius, would choose Apollo 13,
or would seem too fake to have accident with 13. Is some reason promote the idea that 13 is an unlucky number- where does that make any sense. Or is idea to promote that 13 is lucky number- because they survived. Was Apollo 13 purpose to promote the virtue of duct tape? Don’t go to moon without bring some duct tape.
I would really, really want to live in world where writers had such skill at writing fiction. But we don’t such talent evident, today or yesterday. The greatest writer ever would be seen as incompetent in comparison.
Watched a program on the development of the Lunar Rover. The issue all along was of course size and weight. The metal pressure hull of the ascent stage of the Lunar module was so thin that a technician working inside once dropped a screw driver and punctured a hole in it. The ascent stage would actually balloon out when pressurized.
The Rover replaced the cart when they found it possible to design the thing to fit into one of the four quadrant triangular spaces in the descent stage of the Lunar Module. Obviously it had to be designed so it was not to complicated and time consuming operation to fold out and assemble. Really quite an engineering feat.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf
Yeah agree gbaike.
There are lots of documentaries right now.
The drama of Apollo 8 and 11 and 13 was way better than fiction. The acting way better and more natural than astronauts and flight controllers could pull off.
Apollo 8, their giddiness when they witnessed the first Earth Rise and fumbled with the camera.
Then the special effects.
Can’t help but be impressed with the imagery of the Earth, of the Lunar surface from orbit, and the LEM approaching touchdown, with all the drama of that.
Way better and more realistic than what was possible in 1969, IMO.
Hollywood did well out of the whole charade.
There is a bonzer offers from be done with to essentially in hurt of win. drroyspencer.com
http://bit.ly/2NIsTmv
How is it possible that in 2019 people still are naive enough to click on such links?
You just need to move the mouse above this stoopid ‘drroyspencer.com’ to understand that something bad might happen to you…
How is it possible that in 2019 people still are naive enough to click on such links?
You just need to move the mouse above this stoopid name field ‘dr…’ to understand that something bad might happen to you…
The imposter is likely just another Alarmist. You can tell by his inability to make any sense:
“There is a bonzer offers from be done with to essentially in hurt of win.”
He probably also writes “science” papers….
plug the URL into virustotal.com and it comes up clean.
I clicked on that link and a bunch of naked ladies popped up.
Did someone hack you or are you playing a little joke on your loyal fans?
After clicking it I am a little scared of infections, and I don’t mean Herpes.
CoRev,
“PhilJ, no! He thinks the miraclce of Apollo 1 was faked.”
A very sad day for all those involved I’m sure…. (I wasnt yet a twinkle in my daddys eye for that one)
PhilJ, I forgot to mention the faking of the Apollo 13 accident. One of my favorite missions were those prior to 11. They showed the engineering was good. Of those my favorite is Apollo 8, which went to and around the moon and safely returning. Showing it could be done, regardless of those pesky radiation belts.
That is compared to the early Russian flights with no plan to return and the best possibility was a quick death as your module burned up. The Laika story is an example.
The Moon’s albedo is 0.11, according to N.A.S.A.:
https://is.gd/iwa59J
PhilJ
Above you commented to me: ” theories are intentionally developed to see how many people can be caught by them. I think they are done on multiple topics. It is a way to control the Public.
Again! A very intuitive statement!
Psssst.. The GHE is one of them, and to my shame a Canadian is complicit in pushing that one:
I do agree with you that the change in UV to the surface should be deeply researched but I do not agree with you that the GHE is a made up theory. This one is easy to verify using empirical evidence.
I am not sure I have done the calculations with you. I have tried with others.
I use this as an easier example to demonstrate the reality of GHE.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5d2bd9aad5a85.png
If you would click on the link it gives empirical measured values for Desert Rock, Nevada location last summer.
I made the graph with Solar Net (the downwelling solar minus the upwelling solar…this is the energy that the surface will absorb).
The Upwelling IR. This is the energy the surface is losing by radiation (no other heat loss mechanisms are included in this graph only EMR)
The Downwelling IR. The energy radiated by the warmed atmosphere down to the surface.
If you take the area under the curves you will get a total amount of energy reaching or leaving the surface in a 24 hour cycle. This amount will change with the seasons. This is a cloudless day to make the calculations easier.
The energy from the solar input in 24 hours can be determined by taking the area under the curve, which is very close to a parabola (NOTE, these are just rough calculations but the values are large enough that an approximate value will not alter the conclusion).
Area under a parabola is 2/3(height)(width).
In the graph you have a height of almost 800 and a width of 12.
Area=6400 watts total. Multiply by 3600 seconds to convert the watts into the total amount of joules absorbed. You get 23,040,000 joules of available solar input in 24 hours for one square meter of desert surface.
If you use the average of around 550 Watts/m^2 for the energy the surface emits upward and away you get an emitted value (lost) of
(550 W/m^2)(24 hours)(3600)= 47,520,000 joules/m^2
This empirical data shows that the surface receives far less energy from the Sun than it radiates away in a 24 hour cycle. It is not possible for this to continue at this rate.
But if you add the Downwelling IR as added surface energy (not a heat flow, an energy flow) you get a surface square meter receiving the 23,040,000 joules from the Sun plus the (400)(24)(3600) = 34,560,000 from the Downwelling IR from the atmosphere. You now have a positive energy input of 57,600,000 – 47,520,000 = 10,080,000 joules. If you convert that to a flux over 24 hours you need to get rid of 116.6 W/m^2 which are removed by evaporation and convection.
If you want to calculate is as a heat equation not as energy flows.. you would take the NET IR and NET solar.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5d2be16101dd2.png
And you would get close to the positive input of 10 million joules/m^2 in a 24 hour cycle.
The major point is the Sun could not sustain the rate of emission without a GHE. It is not remotely possible. The surface would have to be much cooler than it currently is.
PhilJ
In fact if you calculated the temperature of the sand surface if only solar input was the total energy source (no downwelling IR).
You have a solar input of 23,040,000 joules/m^2 of desert surface. The average emission in 24 hours with this energy input would be 266.67 Watts. During the day it would be higher at night lower but the average surface temperature of the desert soil with an emissivity of sand at 0.9 would have an average temperature of 269 K or 24.5 F.
With the GHE present and active the desert soil is much much warmer in the summer months in this desert.
Night it will get to a low temperature of 93 F (this is not the air temperature but the surface temperature of the sand, the one emitting the UPwelling IR). During the day the sand will soar to 161 F. Much much warmer than the Sun could possibly get it without the GHE.
No I do not think the GHE is a conspiracy at all. I think it is well established and empirically validated science. I am not sure why any actual science person would be strongly against the reality of this factual idea.
N,
Night time temperatures (air) drop to less than 35 F at Desert Rock.
Surface temperatures can drop to below freezing.
No GHE. Your averages are meaningless – just more pseudoscientific cultist nonsense.
As Dr Spencer has pointed out, the presence of an atmosphere on Earth results in a cooler, not a hotter, surface, during the day. And, conversely, at night, the surface is warmer. Thus, the less the amounts of supposed GHGs in the atmosphere – eg, arid tropical deserts, the days are hotter, and the nights are cooler.
Instead of “calculating” temperatures (the method beloved of GHE true believers), just measure them. If they differ from your calculations, your calculations are in error.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Making up completely false information that is easy to refute does not help your credibility in the least.
Here:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5d2bed5bbba23.png
The air temperature at Desert Rock in Summer drops to 23 C or 73 F
I guess making up stuff and posting it is what you think you need to do. Not sure why you think this is a cause you should invest time in.
What else do you want to be wrong about?
N,
“At Desert Rock Airport, the summers are sweltering and mostly clear, the winters are cold and partly cloudy, and it is dry year round. Over the course of the year, the temperature typically varies from 34°F to 99°F and is rarely below 26°F or above 105°F.”
Or (from another source) –
“In recent times the highest recorded temperature in December has been 31°C that’s 88°F, with the lowest recorded temperature -14°C, about 6°F.”
Maybe you are talking about another Desert Rock, in Nevada, USA?
I look at extremes rather than averages. Averages tend to be pointless – but good for fakes, frauds and fools.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
My posts were from July 22, 2018. Your point that winter temperatures get below freezing really has no purpose other than to troll.
You should take your own advice. “Begone Troll”
What you posted was only trolling and has nothing at all to do with the points I am bringing up.
Norman, you’re missing Mike’s point. Your incorrect calculations are bad enough, but one day’s observations do not prove the planet is being heated by the atmosphere.
Do you need some more facts to deny?
Overhead –> 5.3 F
Ground –> 73.1 F
Reality is a bitch, huh?
N,
You wrote –
“Your point that winter temperatures get below freezing really has no purpose other than to troll.”
Your mindreading is defective. My point is that you seem to be claiming that the GHE can only be observed during summer, and when the Sun is shining brightly.
Don’t blame me for what Dr Spencer wrote. It is obvious that maximum temperatures on the airless Moon are higher than anything achievable on Earth. Atmosphere reduces maximum temperatures during the day.
Your “points” are irrelevant – pointless, even. Still no GHE.No CO2 heating.
Cheers.
An observation from space like this one is all you need to see that the GHE exists:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
No one here can explain this observation without a GHE.
David, please stop trolling.
Sorry Norman, you are still making the same mistakes. You can not add and subtract fluxes like that.
JDHuffman
If you follow the logic, you will see I am converting the fluxes into energy, just joules received in a 24 hour cycle. Energy is added and subtracted. There are no longer any fluxes for you to worry about.
The energy the Sun delivers to a square meter of desert surface in a 24 hour cycle is around 23 million joules (give or take on a sunny day). The amount of energy this same square meter emits in a 24 hour cycle is somewhere around 47 million joules.
(Note different ways of calculating can give somewhat different results but that is not what I am interested in at this time, I am not going for high precision…just some basic conclusions).
So you have an energy input from the Sun of 23 million joules per square meter in 24 hours but you also have a surface emission of 47 million joules in a 24 hour period for the same square meter. The Sun does not provide enough energy in a 24 hour cycle.
So no there are not fluxes to worry about. Just 1st Law energy conservation. GHE is quite real. If you did any actual experiments you could prove it to yourself. For one do a three plate experiment and post your results on this blog. Let us know.
Norman, you are so confused I don’t know where to start.
Your bogus calculations indicate the Earth is putting out more than it is taking in! Instead of questioning your “work”, you assume GHE is a “heat source”.
If you had the corresponding spectra, it might help you. You need to find solar wavelengths, at least.
JDHuffman
I have already done this before I have linked you to solar spectra and IT IS NOT necessary. The NET solar energy IS the amount of energy the surface absorbs. That you don’t accept this fact is a problem only with your lack of understanding of heat transfer physics. It is not possible to reach you. That is why I have no desire to communicate with you. Remember it is you who once again had to invade my comments with your ignorant unscientific nonsense. If you had even a little reasoning ability maybe it would be possible to discuss ideas with you. I think PhilJ is an intelligent skeptic, one who can reason. I do not see any potential for this in you. You do not understand my post at all so you pretend to by bringing up a point that does not matter. Solar spectra will not change the amount of energy available at all. You know this but pretend it matters.
Further to the point of needing the spectra, you need to remember flux and energy cannot be treated the same. That’s especially true since you are dealing with a power flux. Power is not conserved, but energy is conserved. So the way you handle the two algebraically is important.
For example, a block of ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2. It contains internal energy, “E”, based on its mass and temperature. If you add an identical block of ice, you have doubled the internal energy, “2E”, but the emitted flux does not become 600 Watts/m^2.
That’s why your “work” is invalid. You are handling the values incorrectly. To see your mistakes, you need the spectra.
No one says this is what happens if you combine two blocks of ice.
Emissions depend on temperature. Period. Not internal energy. See the SB Law.
PS: the internal energy per unit volume of the two ice blocks remains that same after combination.
David, please stop trolling.
N,
You wrote –
“For one do a three plate experiment and post your results on this blog. Let us know.”
Why don’t you do the experiment yourself, rather than demanding others waste their time? Because you are a fraud, that’s why! You have no intention of actually backing up your pseudoscientific nonsense with an experiment, do you?
Just another fool trying to avoid actually doing anything of use. Away with ye, laddie! You can’t even describe this pseudoscientific GHE you claim exists.
What a faker!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
The reason it is pointless for anyone but JDHuffman or you to do the experiments is because you do not accept the results when other people do such experiments. E. Swanson and Roy Spencer have already done experiments proving the IR emitted from a colder object directly alters the temperature of a hotter heated object. It is established by experimental evidence along with all textbook heat transfer physics. It is still not accepted. Only you or JDHuffman doing the experiment yourself will ever have a chance to change your incorrect thoughts on this. Nothing else will ever do it.
Norman, you keep referrng to those experiments as if they proved 2LoT to be wrong. You just don’t understand the experiments. They are NOT proving “cold” can warm “hot”.
You keep referring to things you can’t understand because you have nothing else.
Sheeesh.
RW…re your conspiracy theories on the Van Allen Belt radiation…
The VA Belts are donut shaped and not a sphere, it’s not a big issue to avoid the high intensity areas.
More on the VA Belts from an expert.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/06/16/astroquizzical-van-allen-belts-barrier-spaceflight/#3f88121d6f8d
“Charged particles are damaging to human bodies, but the amount of damage done can range from none to lethal, depending on the energy those particles deposit, the density of those particles, and the length of time you spend being exposed to them”.
Has no one heard of radiation shields? Any metal of appreciable thickness will stop the electrons and protons in the Belts dead.
Colour TVs with the older picture tube had electrons accelerated by 40,000 volts hurled at phosphors on the screen. In the older high voltage coils that created the 40Kv, the accelerated electrons produced xrays that are lethal. The solution was to build Faraday cages around the coils to stop the radiation.
According to conspiracy theories, those electrons should have carried on through the TV screen and given everyone cancer. They don’t. The electron beams are focussed to pass through holes in a metal shield before striking the phosphor screen. The phosphors absorb so much electron energy very little escapes.
Electrons, even at very high speed cannot penetrate metal of appreciable thickness. A thin sheet of lead is impenetrable to electrons.
The danger with a metallic sheathed spacecraft traveling through a field of electron charges is the Eddy Currents set up in the metal. The metal produces a short circuit to the electrons and they SC heats the metal. Even that could be dealt with.
I missed the most important fact. Electrons and protons are particles, not radiation. Radiation is emitted by charged particles as they move. The radiation itself id not the lethal entity, it’s the actual particles.
The VA Belts are donut shaped and not a sphere, it’s not a big issue to avoid the high intensity areas.
cam…”An acute dose is delivered in a short time scale such as less than one day. When a near lethal dose is spread out over weeks or months the exposed person may gain in life expectancy! What does not kill you makes you stronger!”
It’s like the initial radiation from A-bombs, it can burn you and kill you. There were POWs in a Japanese internment camp at Nagasaki in direct view of the bomb. Those receiving radiation directly died instantly whereas as those shielded by something like a wall suffered no ill-effects.
As far as the long-term radiation effect, many people within range of the bomb lived a long and healthy life even though there was radiation left by the bomb.
cam…”Dr. Roy is a real scientist so why is he still using Fahrenheit? OK, just a pet peeve of mine”.
Elementary, my dear Cam. Roy is writing a blog in the US and Fahrenheit is the scale used generally in the US by the US public. In Canada, we converted to the CGS system decades ago, among much complaining and belly-aching.
I still switch between the systems randomly.. ..miles/kilometres, kilograms/pounds, inches/centimetres, kilograms/pounds, Fahernheit/Centigrade.
In science, I still use the CGS system in general but there are cases where foot-pounds, etc., crop up.
Then there are tons and tonnes. What would you use? Kilotons or kilotonnes?
As a scientist, Roy uses metric units. But this blog post is clearly not written in his usual style for his usual audience. Hence the use of Fahrenheit.
brent auvermann…”JDHuffman, there would be no way for us to see the same side of the moon all the time if the moon did NOT rotate on its axisat exactly the same angular speed as it revolves around the earth”.
Why? Where’s your proof?
Here’s mine, that the Moon cannot rotate about its axis and keep the same side facing the Earth.
Place two coins side by side in front of you. Left-hand coin is the Earth, RH coin is the Moon.
Draw a line from 9 o’clock on the left hand coin, through its centre, to 3 o’clock. The RH coin butts up against 3 o’clock on the LH coin at it’s 9 o’clock. So continue the line through 3/9 o’clock, the RH coin’s centre, and onto it’s opposite side at 3 o’clock.
Where the RH coin meets the LH coin draw an arrow head pointing to the LH coin’s centre. The vector (radial line) on the RH coin, from its centre to it’s 9 o’clock, represents the same face of the Moon always pointing at the Earth.
Now move the RH coin around the LH coin always keeping the arrow head in contact with the LH coin’s perimeter and pointed to the LH coin’s centre.
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MOVE THE RH COIN AROUND THE LH COIN, WITH THE ARROW HEAD TOUCHING THE LH COIN’S PERIMETER, AND HAVE THE ARROW HEAD TURN 360 DEGREES AROUND THE RH COIN’S CENTRE.
Here’s the reason. Each point along the radial line on the RH coin is turning in concentric circles about the LH coin’s centre. That applies to each point on the Moon as well. Each point on the Moon is turning in concentric circles around the Earth’s axis. Points on the Moon turning in concentric circles about the Earth’s centre cannot rotate about the Moon’s centre.
This describes curvilinear translation. It is not possible for particles on a rigid body to turn in concentric circles about an external axis and have the rigid body rotate at the same time about it’s own axis or COG.
You are failing to understand why the Moon is in orbit. It has only one force acting on it, Earth’s gravity. The Moon remains in orbit because it LINEAR momentum is sufficient to overcome the acceleration on it toward the Earth caused by Earth’s gravity. In fact, it’s orbit is a resultant path between the Moon’s linear momentum and the Earth’s gravitational force.
Any body with linear momentum passing the Earth at the distance of the Moon will experience one of three effects, depending on it’s momentum. If the momentum is too great, the body will be hurled off into space on a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit. If the momentum is insufficient, the body will spiral in toward the Earth. If the momentum is just right, the body will go into orbit around the Earth.
If that body is not rotating, and has the same face toward the Earth, while it has linear momentum, and there is no gravitational force acting on it, the body will continue in a straight line. However, Earth’s gravity bends the Moon’s trajectory slightly, sending the Moon onto another straight-line path. A moment later, it bends it onto another path, and so on.
Earth’s gravity eases the same face of the Moon onto ever changing LINEAR paths. Every point behind that face, including the points on the face itself, are turning about the Earth’s centre in concentric circles. Each point follows a tangential path to a radial line from the Earth’s centre.
The Moon completes its orbit without having to rotate at all due to the interaction of it’s linear momentum and Earth’s gravity. It’s orbit is equivalent to a straight line trajectory and it has no need to rotate.
That is true in any reference frame…there is no local rotation about an axis.
Gordon squeals:
“Each point on the Moon is turning in concentric circles< around the Earth’s axis. Points on the Moon turning in concentric circles about the Earth’s centre cannot rotate about the Moon’s centre.
This describes curvilinear translation. It is not possible for particles on a rigid body to turn in concentric circles about an external axis and have the rigid body rotate at the same time about it’s own axis or COG."
Gordon has been confused regarding curvilinear translation since Day 1. The definition of curvilinear translation:
“Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf}
You CLAIM to be an engineer,but have NO UNDERSTANDING of simple kinematics. If you cannot understand the simple concept of curvilinear translation, you will always be confused regarding the moon’s rotation about its own axis.
Gordon squeals:
“IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MOVE THE RH COIN AROUND THE LH COIN, WITH THE ARROW HEAD TOUCHING THE LH COINS PERIMETER, AND HAVE THE ARROW HEAD TURN 360 DEGREES AROUND THE RH COINS CENTRE.”
WROng! Of course its possible. You don’t “roll” the RH coin along the surface of the LH coin. You let it slide. No problem at all.
Poor Gordon’s stupid coin tricks confuse himself!
“You are failing to understand why the Moon is in orbit. It has only one force acting on it, Earth’s gravity. The Moon remains in orbit because its LINEAR momentum is sufficient to overcome the acceleration on it toward the Earth caused by Earth’s gravity. In fact, it’s orbit is a resultant path between the Moon’s linear momentum and the Earth’s gravitational force.
Any body with linear momentum passing the Earth at the distance of the Moon will experience one of three effects, depending on it’s momentum. If the momentum is too great, the body will be hurled off into space on a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit. If the momentum is insufficient, the body will spiral in toward the Earth. If the momentum is just right, the body will go into orbit around the Earth.
If that body is not rotating, and has the same face toward the Earth, while it has linear momentum, and there is no gravitational force acting on it, the body will continue in a straight line. However, Earth’s gravity bends the Moon’s trajectory slightly, sending the Moon onto another straight-line path. A moment later, it bends it onto another path, and so on.
Earth’s gravity eases the same face of the Moon onto ever changing LINEAR paths. Every point behind that face, including the points on the face itself, are turning about the Earth’s centre in concentric circles. Each point follows a tangential path to a radial line from the Earth’s centre.
The Moon completes its orbit without having to rotate at all due to the interaction of it’s linear momentum and Earth’s gravity. It’s orbit is equivalent to a straight line trajectory and it has no need to rotate.
That is true in any reference frame…there is no local rotation about an axis.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
The animations in the linked article should make that even clearer, and settle the issue.
Any body with linear momentum passing the Earth at the distance of the Moon will experience one of three effects
Except he Moon’s linear momentum vector NEVER passes through the Earth.
DA, that red herring is more like a purple whale….
It shows that this DrEMT doesn’t understand linear momentum.
That invalids anything else he says, in my book.
No DA, it shows, AGAIN, that you don’t know beans about physics.
Nothing new.
So you keep saying. Yet you’ve never disproved anything about physics I’ve written here.
You’re all talk.
Try the animations, David. They can help the simple-minded avoid missing the point.
You don’t understand linear momentum.
For the moon, its linear momentum vector always points tangent to the orbit curve of the Moon.
It never passes through the Earth. Ever.
Poor DA, he can’t understand the simplest concepts.
No wonder he can’t get a job.
What’s the definition of linear momentum?
#2
Try the animations, David. They can help the simple-minded avoid missing the point.
You clearly do not understand linear momentum.
Do you understand it always points tangent to the curve of the Moon’s orbit?
DA, your new name is “Purple Whale”!
Yet again, instead of addressing the science, you bail out and resort to insults.
#3
Try the animations, David. They can help the simple-minded avoid missing the point.
You don’t understand linear momentum, and the animations don’t help you.
You think the linear momentum of the Moon points to the Earth. That is, you think the velocity of the Moon points to the Earth.
Show us where that happens in the Moon’s orbit.
“You think the linear momentum of the Moon points to the Earth.”
Incorrect, David. It is represented by the arrow in the animations continually at right angles to the arrow representing the force of gravity, which points to the Earth.
Don’t tell me what I think ever again.
Gordon, time to put away your coin collection.
Your head is spinning (rotating) with all this nonsense.
It is a full moon tonight so I shall prescribe extra meds for you and your fellow patients.
nurse crotchrot…”Gordon, time to put away your coin collection.
Your head is spinning (rotating) with all this nonsense”.
If you were not a female impersonator, no doubt in full drag, you might understand my coin demo and get it that it is not possible for a rigid body orbiting another body, with the same face toward the latter body, to also rotate locally about its own axis.
This is basic engineering physics, which I studied in-depth.
Nicola Tesla had no problem arriving at the same conclusion. Goes to show that Tesla was miles ahead of modern NASA theorists.
Gordon is a complete fraud. He has NO UNDERSTANDING of simple kinematic concepts such as curvilinear translation. Every time he is corrected on the issue, he quits posting. His ignorance is simply breathtaking.
HGS,
Do you have a point?
Are you just annoyed that your “corrections” seem to be ignored? Maybe if you strutted around in jackboots and a peaked cap, waving a riding crop, you might make others quail at your threat of “correction”!
As to curvilinear translation, a body orbiting the Earth is merely a projectile whose velocity is such that its horizontal motion exactly compensates for the rate at which gravity causes the projectile to fall towards the Earth. The Moon is such a projectile,
The particles of the body remain on parallel orbital ellipses. The body exhibits curvilinear translation, without simultaneously rotating about its axis.
But who cares? Does it make a blind bit of difference to anyone, and what relevance does it have to anything to do with the non-existent GHE?
So carry on trolling. Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. Bad luck for you and your ilk.
Cheers.
WTF is your point? I have never said I believe in the GHE. It has nothing to do with the moon’s rotation anyway. But it seems that many non GHE believers also don’t believe the moon rotates on its own axis. But that ain’t me.
So just shut up and mind your own business.
Maybe you should do a little investigating before you open your mouth and insert your foot, jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
HGS,
You wrote –
“So just shut up and mind your own business.”
Ooooh! So manly and assertive!
And if I don’t, how do you intend to “correct” me? Threats of violence? Juvenile attempts at gratuitous insults?
I am heartened to hear that you don’t believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! That’s a totally ridiculous idea, I agree.
Just assure me that you don’t believe in the GHE, and of course I will believe you. I can’t see why you appear upset. I can’t see where I said you believed in the GHE – are you complaining about something I didn’t say, rather than something I did?
Carry on with the mindreading. You might need a bit more practice.
Cheers.
Begonia
Oh! The olde, withered Begonia clearly shows signs of Alzheimer…
1. “So carry on trolling. Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. Bad luck for you and your ilk.”
2. “I cant see where I said you believed in the GHE are you complaining about something I didnt say, rather than something I did?”
Isn’t it, Begonia? Dites-nous tout!
But you soon will be saved, it’s time for your altar boy to come back and tell us as usual:
“HuffmanGoneStupid, Bindidon, please stop trolling.”
Silence, beast.
binny…”Isnt it, Begonia? Dites-nous tout!”
Why does a German speak French? The same German who leaves the blog in a snit then re-appears with a female nym he claims is his girlfriend?
Where has your girlfriend gone recently. Get tired of keeping up the charade of having to post for two?
stupid…”Gordon is a complete fraud”.
Something posting with a pseudo-pseudonym calls me a fraud. Something lacking such ingenuity that it has to steal another poster’s name to make up his nym.
It’s little wonder that something lacks the basic understanding of kinematics or physics in general and is too stupid to follow a simple experiment with coins that disproves its point.
In other words, your nym states that JD has far more intelligence than you, that you are he after he becomes stupid.
Even if JD did somehow become stupid, he’s still be far in advance of you.
We’ll talk when you have a correct understanding of curvilinear translation. But it’s been over a year, and you still don’t get it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon on the right is exhibiting curvilinear translation. The moon on the left is rotating on it’s own axis, like our moon.
Gordon is completely confused.
HGS,
Nope. Your wisely anonymous Wiki graphic author has it back to front. You can derive the correct depiction from Newton’s Laws of Motion if you choose. And no, I won’t do it for you. Look it up for yourself.
Others are free to believe what they wish,
Cheers.
You don’t NEED Newton’s laws of motion, which shows your ignorance.
All you need are the definitions of kinematic motion in which forces are not needed.
For the figure on the right, draw a line through the centroid of the moon, and label points A and B at the outer edge of the moon. That line remains parallel to its original position throughout that moon’s motion, thereby meeting the definition of translational motion.
Furthermore, the motion of points A and B as I’ve described above form two congruent circles, another requirement for curvilinear translation:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
I guess you’ve never had a class in kinematics. Too bad. You’ve been corrected. My job is done.
“Stupid”, you’re still getting it wrong.
You do need Newton’s work, as that allows you to understand the forces that produce orbital motion. You still can’t understand orbiting.
And, you are confused about “translational” motion. In your limited education, you believe train tracks cannot turn. You appear unable to learn.
Nothing new.
Dear El Stupido,
I’ve posted the correct definitions of translation from University Engineering school websites. Sorry you are too dumb to understand them.
You, however, never define anything, because you don’t know what you are talking about. You just pound the keyboard, hoping something intelligent will appears.
Poor brainless does not comprehend that kinematics does not deal with forces that cause motion. The motion can be described without knowing the forces.
JDH, does the Earth rotate while orbiting the Sun?
Or does it just orbit?
David, why would you ask a question that had already been answered?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364075
Oh, you’re just trolling. Understood.
“Stupid”, the only relevant thing you have linked to was the MIT example problem involving a train on a circular track. The example mentioned that an object on the train would NOT be rotating on its axis.
You don’t want to talk about that link….
JDH, what is the view of the Earth, from the Sun, when its rotation rate is only once per year?
The Moon isn’t on a track.
But, yes, the train is rotating. It points from 0 to 360 degrees while moving around the track. That’s rotation.
That’s the left-hand animation here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
DA attempts another distracting question: “JDH, what is the view of the Earth, from the Sun, when its rotation rate is only once per year?”
See Figure 2, clown.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
You misinterpreted that figure — the arrows on the right hand side don’t represent a horse going around the track, do they? Or the moon that always faces the Earth….
Surely you understand this at least….
Figure 1 illustrates Arrow in orbital motion, only.
Figure 2 illustrates Arrow both orbiting AND rotating CCW on its axis.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
The thing with David’s comments is…they reveal that he doesn’t actually understand what we are trying to explain. It’s not that he understands our position, but disagrees, like some people. He is actually so dense that he doesn’t even get it!
Oops!
Figure 2 is orbiting CCW, but rotating CW!
Yes DREMT, his mind is closed. All he can accept is his pseudoscience, his false religion.
He’s like several others here, and what makes them clowns is they all believe they understand the relevant physics!
stupid…”All you need are the definitions of kinematic motion in which forces are not needed”.
The accelerations and velocities in kinematic IMPLY forces. Acceleration is not possible without a force, neither is velocity, you need a force to get a body in motion. When it stops accelerating it has constant velocity. You cannot ignore the force keeping the Moon in orbit nor the momentum due to a constant linear velocity.
At each instant of time, the Moon is following a straight line (tangential) path. If gravity could be switched off at any one of those instants, the Moon would fly off in a tangential line (perpendicular to a radial line from the Earth).
That’s why the Moon APPEARS to rotate in your gif. In fact, it is being slowly nudged by gravity from one tangential line to another through a 360 degree ORBIT.
There is no local rotation.
Gordon,
You have obviously never taken a physics course in your life.
Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics which describes the motion of points (alternatively “particles”), bodies (objects), and systems of bodies without consideration of the masses of those objects nor the forces that may have caused the motion (per WIkipedia)
You DON’t need info on the forces to describe the motion, clown. Period.
JD has invented the world’s first non moving gif. Brilliant! You have to pretend the arrows move. At least this matches his pretend physics.
JD’s Figure 2 represents translational motion per multiple kinematic definitions:
1. The orientation of the object is unchanged during the motion. (check – all the arrows point in the same direction)
[http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/fall2017/201/phy201_lect17_handout.pdf]
2. It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. (check – all the black lines are parallel to the red line)
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
3. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. (check – the arrows do not rotate.)
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Why “definitions of translation” and “reference frames” don’t settle the issue
People that go on and on about definitions of translation, and reference frames, and have no other argument apart from that, are missing a fairly basic, and key point. You can describe the motion of the moon as follows:
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b).
You can look at it as though the moon were rotating about an axis passing through the Earth, or more specifically a pivot point at the Earth-moon barycenter, in which case it moves as per the rectangle about point O in the diagram; with all the particles that make up the moon travelling in concentric circles around the Earth. Yes, I am aware that gravity is not holding the Earth rigidly in place like the rod from point O connected to the rectangle, but this is just a simplification to get across the point about the change of perspective.
Since people try to argue that the moon’s motion is a translation, plus a rotation on its own axis, but you could also describe it as simply a rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter, with no axial rotation, it’s clear that kinematic descriptions alone will not settle this issue. That’s why you need to consider the forces involved, and get to the bottom of the correct definition of what “orbital motion” (meaning “orbital motion without axial rotation”) really is. This you can do here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
Finally, people arguing that “reference frames” settle the issue need to remember that the above description of the moon rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, but not on its own axis, is looking at the problem from the inertial reference frame. Usually people try to say, “from the inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating on its own axis. So that puts paid to that.
Yawn…..
That’s exactly what I think, when you write for what must be, literally, something approaching the 100th time, the exact same explanation of curvilinear translation, etc. With the exact same, “Gordon shrieks”, or “Gordon squeals”, or “Gordon blubbers”, etc.
Yawn.
You bored me at “Why”. Yawn…..
Keep pounding that keyboard. Something intelligent is bound to appear in a few billion years,
Thank you for your concession.
Dr Em T,
Try to keep your responses to 1 line. I don’t read your comments if they exceed 1 line.
It just comes across like you have no rebuttal. If that’s what you’re going for, fine.
stupid…”The moon on the right is exhibiting curvilinear translation. The moon on the left is rotating on its own axis, like our moon”.
You are suffering an illusion. Neither one is rotating about its axis.
The Moon on the left does keep the same face toward the Earth and I have no idea what the Moon on the right is supposed to represent.
On the left hand gif, the effect of Earth’s gravity is similar to having a rigid member attached to the Moon’s centre and extending to the Earth’s centre. Of course, you’d need a slot in the Earth to allow the rigid member to turn. In that case, the rigid member would prevent the Moon rotating on it’s own axis.
Armed with that insight, look at the LH gif again. Watch it carefully with the full notion that every point on the Moon is turning in concentric circles as if it was attacked to the Earth by a rigid member. It performs orbital motion without local rotation.
In fact, imagine a land bridge between the Earth and the Moon, attached so the Moon would have a similar orbit but non-elliptical as the Earth rotated. The same side of the Moon would always face the Earth and there’s no way the Moon could rotate due to the solid connection with the Earth.
Poor Gordon squeals:
“The same side of the Moon would always face the Earth and theres no way the Moon could rotate due to the solid connection with the Earth.”
WRONG! You have a deep misunderstanding of kinematics and reference frames. You think that moon could not rotate with a connection to earth because you are fixing the reference frame to a rotating earth! OMG. How dumb. You truly must have flunked kinematics. Place a compass north arrow though the centroid of that moon attached to earth and you will see that moon happily rotating around the north arrow.
“Stupid”, you still do not understand orbital motion. You’re obsessed with kinematics when you should be studying orbiting.
But using my name might fool some into thinking your smart.
Good luck with that….
“WRONG! You have a deep misunderstanding of kinematics and reference frames.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791
The cowardly psychobabbling “nurse ratchet” reappears!
Pompous and delusional as ever, a troll with nothing of substance behind a child like exterior.
There is only one rational response for such a snivelling creature – Begone troll!
Security!
As expected, the full moon is upsetting our patients.
Begone, psychobabbling troll!
Mike f…”Pompous and delusional as ever, a troll with nothing of substance behind a child like exterior”.
There is a twist here. Nurse Crotchrot is tranny troll. Maybe it’s seeking a Section 8, like Klinger in MASH.
A good discussion on the Van Allen belts and danger to humans.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-humans-survive-the-Van-Allen-radiation-belts
Gordon, forget about Van Allen radiation.
You only need to worry about the effects of your electroconvulsive therapy treatments.
Hopefully we will make progress some day.
Begone, pretentious troll!
Stop trolling and insulting all the time, thou olde pretentious Begonia!
Silence, beast.
Recently I read an interesting Indian paper about the tidal forces operting within the Earth-Moon system:
Order In Chaos: Definite Rules That Govern The Drift Of Moon Away From The Earth
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0097.pdf
Nice work, which reminded me another paper written by an Egyptian scientist in 2003
Evolution of angular momenta and energy of the Earth-Moon system
http://cds.cern.ch/record/636493/files/0308162.pdf
{ Differential equations about tidal forces were setup by Newton and Laplace 250 years ago! }
*
Moon’s spin about its axis is not at all the point here.
I’ll come around with links to work about that. starting with the first explanation of Moon’s longitudinal librations presented by Lagrange at the Academie des Sciences in Paris.
There will be also links to work contradicting the idea, mainly based on Tesla’s quick thoughts 100 years ago.
*
This all is nothing for those embarrassed by the mix of arrogance and ignorance so desperately filling their brain.
We should leave them playing with racehorses and coins, and concentrate instead on reading what true scientists and observers managed to detect and understand.
Bindidon, if you can’t get to a point, just present irrelevant links and ramble.
There are a couple of other typists here that might be fooled.
Moon issue settled:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
Describe the situation where the Moon *IS* rotating while orbiting.
Were you not able to understand this one, DA?
It is pretty advanced for you….
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
But your body in the place of the arrows.
In the right-hand picture you would always be facing in the same direction. That’s *not* rotating. Your field of vision does not sweep through 360 degrees — it always points in the same direction .
In Figure 2, the arrow must be rotating CCW on its axis, to counter the change in direction due to the orbit.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Learn some physics.
(Same error as above.)
Figure 2 has Arrow orbiting CCW, but rotating CW.
No matter at what speed, or in what direction, the moon were rotating on its axis whilst orbiting, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Situation described.
Not if the Moon’s rotational period was the same as its orbiting period.
Then you’d only see one side.
Wrong again DA.
You just can’t learn.
DA…”Not if the Moons rotational period was the same as its orbiting period.
Then youd only see one side.”
1)Do my coin experiment and prove it for yourself.
2)If you draw a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the near face of the Moon and on to it’s centre, in order for the same face to always face the Earth, that line must always pass from Earth centre through the near face to the Moon’s centre.
That means all points on the that line, through the Moon MUST travel in concentric circles about the Earth’s centre. In order for the Moon to rotate about its axis, those points would also have to rotate about it’s axis.
It is simply not possible for all points on the Moon to orbit the Earth in parallel lines (concentric circles) and rotate about a local axis at the same time. If that were the case, all points on the near face would have to turn through 360 degrees.
Incorrect. Re-read previous comment until understood.
You’re wrong.
It’s that simple.
PS: Not understanding linear momentum is a big point against taking your opinion seriously.
DA, you are the one that can’t understand ANY physics.
Get a clue.
“PS: Not understanding linear momentum is a big point against taking your opinion seriously.”
OK then, I guess we won’t take your opinion seriously.
binny…from your first link…
“When the Moon was formed it was much closer to the Earth than it is today. It just needed about 20 days then togo around the Earth. Now it takes the Moon 29.5 days to make one revolution.
You are way out of your league here. No need to be commenting sarcastically on matter of physics you don’t begin to understand.
You are still harping about librations, which are tiny APPARENT motions of the Moon.
re link 1…
Point 1: no one has any idea how the Moon was formed.
Point2: according to this lame theory, the Moon would have to lose momentum gradually in order to adjust to a larger orbit. They did not say how much closer it was in the past but I am sure a calculation would place it in the Earth’s atmosphere, a bad place to be for an orbiting body.
The authors seem to lack a background in physics.
Your second link is about a model predicting facts about the Moon a long time ago.
Re: Sir Isaac Newton’s statements about
– uniformity of the principle of all planets’ rotation about their axis;
– Moon’s rotation about its axis as the origin of Moon’s longitudinal libration
*
A. Last year, I came across a Google book
Revolution and Continuity (edited by Barker & Ariew)
which included a contribution by Allan Gabbey:
The Case of the Rotating Moon
Innovation: Newton and Lunar Libration (p.97)
https://tinyurl.com/y3ujfanl
It was about a hint within Laplace’s work, concerning a letter from Sir Isaac Newton to Mercator, in which he explained his theory about the connection between libration and lunar rotation. But I came across a short statement on page 107:
“But no relation between libration in the longitude and the equation of the center what is mentioned, and …” (see continuation on page 107).
Unfortunately, I did not look any further. I thought, Sir Isaac would have proposed an inofficial theory which he did not include in his official work.
B. But today, I finally found, just a few pages away, the definitive indication that Sir Isaac not only believed that all planets revolve around their own axis, but that this also applies to the Moon, and that the rotation of the Moon around its own axis is the basic reason for the longitudinal libration.
P. 110/111, annotation No. 32
„In like manner the moon rotates around its axis by diurnal motion; hence arises its libration.”
C. A further Google search gave within a Google book
Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Princples of Natural Philosophy and His System of The World
https://tinyurl.com/y6lyg454
p 579, [35]:
“The planets rotate around their own axes uniformly with respect to the stars; these motions are well adapted for the measurement of time.”
p. 580, [36]
(like in Gabbey’s annotation)
“In like manner the moon rotates around its axis by diurnal motion; hence arises its libration.”
This book is a translation of the following original source:
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
https://tinyurl.com/y3lrplg8
The texts were saved via screen print, as I had to experience that what you see in a Google book is not necessary visible in a subsequent search, let alone in a search by other people:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZbMY4GiY0Fe3ZBCChroNuKEjOddPO8jZ/view
*
D. Conclusion
Until now, all the Pseudoskeptics deying Moon’s rotation around its axis pretended that all work done by Cassini, Mercator, Lagrange, Laplace etc was a non-sequitur, because Sir Isaac Newton never had integrated such theory within his own work.
He did very well.
QED, case closed for me.
E. But…
You will see that Pseudoskeptics never give up.
They will say: “Even Sir Isaac can have gone wrong! Nikola Tesla was right! Look at our racehorses and coins!”
“…case closed for me.”
For you, the case, like your mind, was closed from the very beginning.
Do I understand you well, altar boy?
Do you really deny the correctness of Sir Isaac Newton’s statements I was referring to above?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364669
Oh! The beast forgot to include the cannonball!
I heavily apologise.
Apologize to your parents for the disappointment.
According to Wikipedia:
“Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7) between the Moon’s axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth.”
Note the term : “..Moon’s axis of rotation..”
The Moon rotates on its axis. Debate closed.
P.S. An interesting fact.
Even though the Moon only presents one face towards the Earth, it is possible to see 59% of its surface (due to librations).
“The Moon rotates on its axis. Debate closed.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364669
mickey…”The Moon rotates on its axis. Debate closed”.
Libration is an apparent motion just like the apparent motion of the Sun across our sky.
Besides, even someone as obtuse as you could get published in the wiki.
DM,
Wikipedia contains a deal of nonsense.
Case closed.
Cheers.
–Dr Myki says:
July 15, 2019 at 5:04 PM
According to Wikipedia:
“Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7) between the Moon’s axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth.”
Note the term : “..Moon’s axis of rotation..”
The Moon rotates on its axis. Debate closed.–
So, is it saying that Moon axis is 6.7 degrees.
It tilts 6.7 degree relative to Earth.
And I would add the Moon axis tilt to Sun is about 1.5 degrees and tilts 1.5 degree northward and then back, then tilts 1.5 degree southward, and tilts back- and completing cycle once a year.
And would say the 6.7 degree is combination of the 1.5 degree tilt relative to the sun added to Moon’s inclination of about 5.145 degree relative to Earth.
The 5.145 is the inclination of orbit rather tilt of axis.
Or said differently, one change the Moon’s inclination and it would nothing to the spin of the Moon but instead it’s changes of inclination of orbit- one could move the Moon inclination so it’s 0.0 rather than 5.145 degree. {It would require massive amount delta-v – though if changed it from 5.145 to 5.144 inclination, it would require a lot less delta-v- and again, nothing to do altering spin}. A perhaps practical way to change the inclination
would be to use gravity assist- Have space rock change it’s inclination by flying close to Moon, and change of space rock inclination will correspond to change of Moon’s inclination {or energy will be conserved- as is the case with all gravity assists}.
Hmm, more.
The required delta-v energy of change of inclination is related to it’s orbital velocity [And it’s Mass].
When launching rockets from US to get satellite to the zero inclination of geostationary orbit, it requires a change of inclination of the orbit. A typical way of to this is changing the inclination at the apogee of GTO trajectory [orbit]- because this where it has slowest orbital velocity. As I dimly recall it requires about 1.5 km/sec of delta-v. One could google it.
Another way to lower the delta-v cost of changing the inclination is to swing by the moon [it’s complicated but it has been done- and takes a lot time and not normally done].
Anyhow, the Moon orbital velocity to Earth is:
” Mean orbital velocity (km/s) 1.022
Max. orbital velocity (km/s) 1.082
Min. orbital velocity (km/s) 0.970 ”
So it’s not a fast velocity to change, and to use at least of
energy, one would change it at apogee: 0.970 km/sec.
Now more interesting question, can change the 1.5 degree tilt of the Moon.
I am not sure it can be done, but anyways, any ideas of how it might be done?
Question, if changed the Moon’s inclination so it was at Earth’s equator [0 inclination]. Would alter the Moon’s 1.5 degree tilt in regards to the Sun?
☺️
binny…you really like to put yourself out on a limb while sawing off the branch between you and the tree.
All you have quoted from Newton is about libration, a tiny apparent seesaw motion of the Moon from a certain Earth perspective.
The other word used is diurnal, which refers to the APPARENT motion of the stars and planets across the night sky due to the Earth’s rotation. You have not cited anything that confirms either Newton or your other author is talking about a full 360 degree rotation of the Moon about its axis.
However, the ease with which you close your mind to direct evidence you can prove for yourself confirms my suspicion that you have no interest in science and only a vague interest in statistics.
From the Sun’s point of view, all points on the Moon’s surface are illuminated at some point in time. Therefore, the Moon rotates 360 deg with respect to the sun.
mickey…”From the Sun’s point of view, all points on the Moon’s surface are illuminated at some point in time. Therefore, the Moon rotates 360 deg with respect to the sun”.
No, it doesn’t. It orbits the Earth and due to its orbit it exposes different faces to the Sun. At no time during its Earth orbit is the Moon rotating about its axis. That means, no matter the reference frame, the Moon is never rotating about its axis.
Rotation requires an angular velocity of mass about that axis. Turning in an orbit does not satisfy that requirement unless the body is both orbiting, and rotating about its axis, like the Earth about the Sun.
Bindidon you clowns are amazing. Newton agreed with all of us that the Moon rotates on its axis RELATIVE to the stars. That is obvious, due to its orbit.
Nice try, but you will need much more denial. The simple racehorse ruins your false religion.
Nothing new.
One day, anonymous Hoffnan, we will see who are the clowns in this circus…
I’m patient.
Bindidon, are you “patient” or just “slow”.
We already know who the clowns are. They are the ones that claim a racehorse is also rotating on its axis as it runs an oval track. And then, they try to claim they understand the relevant physics.
Great humor, huh?
JD…”We already know who the clowns are. They are the ones that claim a racehorse is also rotating on its axis as it runs an oval track”.
Ironically, the same clowns who believe a trace gas making up 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere can warm the planet catastrophically.
Dear dimwits,
I am with Postma. No GHE, but the moon does rotate on its own axis. The guy is smart and has a MS in astrophysics. I am in good company.
However, Postma threw you clowns under the bus. JD was so embarrassed, he never did return to Postma’s site. LMAO.
HGS,
Who is Postma? Are you appealing to his authority, perhaps?
Maybe you should appeal to someone who is accepted as an authority by your intended audience.
Even better, provide some facts upon which people can form a judgement of your argument.
Just blathering about how wonderful you are is unlikely to prove persuasive. Carry on if you believe that you can attract others to your cause by acting the fool.
Cheers.
“Stupid” is unable to think for himself, like the other clowns that troll here. He doesn’t understand a racehorse proves the Moon is not rotating on its axis. “Stupid” is unable to figure it out. He clings to his “heroes”, like an adolescent adoring some new rockstar.
They can’t think independently. They all apparently are in the same typing class, and ride the same schoolbus….
JD’s favorite song: “The wheels of the bus go round and round”
LMAO
HGS, please stop trolling.
Mike…”Maybe you should appeal to someone who is accepted as an authority by your intended audience”.
Like Nicola Tesla, who thought the Moon did NOT rotate on its axis.
Dr Spencer wrote –
“7) The Earth is always in the same part of the lunar sky”
This could indicate that the Earth orbits the Moon, if the Moon was rotating on a more or less vertical axis, in the same way that the scientific consensus of the time had the Sun travelling round the Earth. But of course, it doesn’t.
The Moon doesn’t seem to be rotating with respect to the Earth, otherwise the Earth would not remain in the same place in the lunar sky.
Once again, what is the point of all this? Does it also apply to the Earth, for example? Should another rotation of the Earth (1 day) be added every orbit around the Sun as it behaves like the Moon? Should the year have about 366.25 days, rather than 365.25?
In addition, there could be a presumption that the Moon’s axis of rotation is at about 90 degrees to the plane of the ecliptic, but as Uranus shows, this is not necessarily correct. Who is to say that the Moon’s original rotation (if any) was not around an axis similar to that of Uranus, or even on an axis parallel to the Moon’s orbit?
A bullet in flight is designed to rotate in such a fashion, as is a well made arrow.
But what the heck, it seems to make not a blind bit of difference to man nor beast, in practical terms.
Rotate (or not) to your heart’s content. The exercise is good for you.
Cheers.
“Should another rotation of the Earth (1 day) be added every orbit around the Sun as it behaves like the Moon? Should the year have about 366.25 days, rather than 365.25?”
Almost got it right. One Earth orbit of the sun comprises 364.5 sunrises plus 1 extra sunrise due to the effective rotation =365.25 days.
s,
On what date does this extra sunrise occur? Or is it spread over the others?
Cheers.
I noticed that David Appell wrote –
“Emissions depend on temperature. Period. Not internal energy. See the SB Law.”
Once again, the pseudoscientific cultist reliance on vague definitions raises its ugly head.
In this case “emissions”. I’ll just point out that the discussion has been about “fluxes” using units of W/m2, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that DA has equated “emissions” to “fluxes” to muddy the waters.
Unfortunately, emissions may have more to do with emissivity than temperature. Ice at -1 C may, in fact, be emitting more energy per unit area than boiling water at 100 C, if the water is contained in a receptacle with very low emissivity.
So DA’s very definitive assertion may not be correct, and generally isn’t, in the real world.
Throwing in a command to “see” the SB Law is just another attempt to appear intelligent and sciencey, while neglecting to mention that the SB Law has very serious constraints placed upon the conditions under which it applies – and these are very rarely (maybe never) found in the real world.
And still no GHE. Not even a useful description of the mythical creature. Unicorns have better descriptions. No CO2 heating, either!
Cheers.
Mike…”I noticed that David Appell wrote
Emissions depend on temperature. Period. Not internal energy. See the SB Law.”
Appell is confused. He doesn’t seem to get it that temperature is a measure of heat, which is internal energy. Conversely, temperature is a measure of the average internal energy, which is heat.
S-B claims that EM intensity is the temperature of a body to the 4th power. It can also be stated as the heat dissipated when the EM is produced. Heat is lost when EM is emitted and the internal energy is reduced.
Unless of course the internal energy as heat is replaced at the same time.
One must also remember that Stefan took great pains to reduce heat loss by conduction and convection. With both operating the S-B equation regarding heat loss is no longer valid.
“With both operating the S-B equation regarding heat loss is no longer valid.”
That is why it is valid for planets (since there is no conduction nor convection to outer space).
That is why we can calculate an effective planetary emitting temperature.
For Earth this is 255K.
But the surface is about 300K.
The difference is due to greenhouse gases.
Here endeth the proof.
Simple, eh?
mickey…”That is why we can calculate an effective planetary emitting temperature.
For Earth this is 255K.”
Sorry, the Earth is not a blackbody radiator like the heated platinum wire upon which S-B is based. The sigma in S-B does not apply to the Earth and there is no T on Earth upon which to base it. Sigma applies only in the range of 700C to about 1400C, not to the surface at a guestimated 15C.
The 255K is a guess, nothing more. As someone pointed out in an earlier post the difference between that 255K drawn from a hat and the 288K, another number, could be accounted for through natural variability.
“The sigma in S-B does not apply to the Earth”
Huh!
The constant in the SB Law is actually not a constant?
Well, blow me down. How could we have all made this mistake for so long ?!
All those manufacturers of radiometers, all the tens of thousands of engineers and scientists who rely on their instruments, you mean they got it wrong? !
Let it be known from this time forth, the SB constant is not constant according to GR !!
(p.s. please ask nurse Ratchet to give you another ECT)
“(p.s. please ask nurse Ratchet to give you another ECT)”
OK, Ian.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364815
DM,
You asked –
“Well, blow me down. How could we have all made this mistake for so long ?”
You tell me. How would I know why you and your ilk make such stupid mistakes? Have you considered that stupidity and ignorance might play a large part?
When you find out, would you mind letting me know?
Cheers.
Emissivity & the Heat Balance
Emissivity is defined as the amount of radiative heat leaving a surface to the theoretical maximum or BB radiation at the surface temperature. The heat balance defines what enters and leaves a system, i.e.
Incoming = outgoing, W/m^2 = radiative + conductive + convective + latent
Emissivity = radiative / total W/m^2 = radiative / (radiative + conductive + convective + latent)
In a vacuum (conductive + convective + latent) = 0 and emissivity equals 1.0.
In open air full of molecules other transfer modes reduce radiation’s share and emissivity, e.g.:
conduction = 15%, convection =35%, latent = 30%, radiation & emissivity = 20%
The Instruments & Measurements
But wait, you say, upwelling LWIR power flux is actually measured.
Well, no it’s not.
IR instruments, e.g. pyrheliometers, radiometers, etc. don’t directly measure power flux. They measure a relative temperature compared to heated/chilled/calibration/reference thermistors or thermopiles and INFER a power flux using that comparative temperature and ASSUMING an emissivity of 1.0. The Apogee instrument instruction book actually warns the owner/operator about this potential error noting that ground/surface emissivity can be less than 1.0.
That this warning went unheeded explains why SURFRAD upwelling LWIR with an assumed and uncorrected emissivity of 1.0 measures TWICE as much upwelling LWIR as incoming ISR, a rather egregious breach of energy conservation.
This also explains why USCRN data shows that the IR (SUR_TEMP) parallels the 1.5 m air temperature, (T_HR_AVG) and not the actual ground (SOIL_TEMP_5). The actual ground is warmer than the air temperature with few exceptions, contradicting the RGHE notion that the air warms the ground.
Gordon Robertson says:
Sigma applies only in the range of 700C to about 1400C
Wherever did you get that wildly absurd idea?
GR said:
“The 255K is a guess, nothing more.”
Just a quibble. The 255 K estimate is not a guess as it is based on impeccable mathematics. Nevertheless it is wrong because it depends on unrealistic assumptions about the thermal properties of solids. Here is the how Scott Denning once explained it:
https://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/morcombe1.jpg
Today Dr. Denning and this camel are much closer to agreement that the temperature of an airless Earth should be around 209 Kelvin.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
Mickey…”The sigma in S-B does not apply to the Earth
Huh!
The constant in the SB Law is actually not a constant?
Well, blow me down. How could we have all made this mistake for so long ?!
All those manufacturers of radiometers, all the tens of thousands of engineers and scientists who rely on their instruments, you mean they got it wrong? !”
Right and wrong. The constant is a constant only within the temperature range from which Stefan got his data from Tyndall. That temperature range can be regarded a blackbody since it is hot enough to emit an EM range of frequencies to classify it as a blackbody.
As you know, the so-called constant is a constant of proportionality. That means it relates T^4 to the intensity of the EM from a body of temperature T. However, that proportionality is not constant across a temperature range that drops to room or surface temperature. To use it under those conditions you must adjust sigma.
The second part is wrong. Radiometers do not use S-B to measure heat in relation to a detected IR frequency. They are adjusted in a lab to read the equivalent heat that WOULD BE EXPECTED from an EM source at the measured frequency.
Radiometers do not measure heat, they detect frequency in the IR spectrum. If you took a high frequency oscillator in the IR band and ran its output through a transducer that emitted in the IR frequency band, the radiometer would tell you the heat of the source, which would be dead wrong. The observer of the radiometer would not know he/she had been fooled.
DM,
You don’t need to demonstrate more stupidity and ignorance than you actually possess. Unless you really want to, of course!
You wrote –
“That is why we can calculate an effective planetary emitting temperature.
For Earth this is 255K.
But the surface is about 300K.
The difference is due to greenhouse gases.”
Others may well question from which part of your delusional fantasy you plucked some random figures. In any case, you seem to be claiming that when the calculated figure differs from the measured, an imaginary reason is concocted to reconcile the discrepancy, rather than accepting that your calculation was wrong.
As Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You also wrote –
“Simple, eh?”
I assume you were describing your personality, and if so, I agree.
Cheers.
Which bit did you not understand?
Or which bit do you disagree with ?
(p.s. please ask nurse Ratchet to also give you another ECT)
INS,
Try reading and comprehending. It might be a new experience, but it should answer your witless gotchas.
What “bits” are you talking about?
I assume your last sentence was a puerile attempt at being gratuitously offensive . If you need a spot of assistance at being offensive, I’m here to help.
You may not be aware that I generally decline to take offence, unless I am given good reason. You haven’t provided any reason at all.
Cheers.
Refer to the Dutton/Brune Penn State METEO 300 chapter 7.2: These two professors quite clearly assume/state that the earth’s current 0.3 albedo would remain even if the atmosphere were gone or if the atmosphere were 100 % nitrogen, i.e. at an average 240 W/m^2 OLR and an average S-B temperature of 255 K.
That is just flat ridiculous.
NOAA says that without an atmosphere the earth would be a -430 F frozen ice-covered ball.
That is just flat ridiculous^2.
Without the atmosphere or with 100% nitrogen there would be no liquid water or water vapor, no vegetation, no clouds, no snow, no ice, no oceans and no longer a 0.3 albedo. The earth would get blasted by the full 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.
The sans atmosphere albedo might be similar to the moon’s as listed in NASA’s planetary data lists, a lunarific 0.11, 390 K on the lit side, 100 K on the dark.
And the naked, barren, zero water w/o atmosphere earth would receive 27% to 43% more kJ/h of solar energy and as a result would be 19 to 33 C hotter not 33 C colder, a direct refutation of the greenhouse effect theory and most certainly NOT a near absolute zero frozen ball of ice.
Nick Schroeder says:
Refer to the Dutton/Brune Penn State METEO 300 chapter 7.2: These two professors quite clearly assume/state that the earth’s current 0.3 albedo would remain even if the atmosphere were gone or if the atmosphere were 100 % nitrogen, i.e. at an average 240 W/m^2 OLR and an average S-B temperature of 255 K.
That is just flat ridiculous.
Everyone knows it’s not a realistic calculation.
Everyone understand it’s just a heuristic calculation.
Only you seem to be out of the loop.
Gordon, it’s always been known that the SB Law is for emission into a vacuum.
David, please stop trolling.
Colonizing the Moon should be a much higher priority that missions to Mars.
Colonizing the Moon is “doable” with chemical rockets. Colonizing Mars and the asteroids won’t make sense until we have nuclear rockets.
With nuclear rockets trips to Mars will take less than a day when Mars is on our side of the sun and less than four days when it is at its greatest distance:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/bussard-revisited/
Why bother? We should fake a Mars landing so as to goad the Chinese, the Indians, the Israelis etc. into wasting their money.
–DMT says:
July 15, 2019 at 11:13 PM
Why bother? We should fake a Mars landing so as to goad the Chinese, the Indians, the Israelis etc. into wasting their money.–
camel is talking about colonizing, and you seem to be talking about NASA exploration of Mars.
NASA is spending 20 billion per year, not exploring the Moon and Mars.
And generally the idea has been adding a billion to budget and organize in a particular direction {not spend money on other things}
such as NASA spending about 10 billion on James telescope. So maybe delay building other large telescope, finish and launch the James telescope. And in terms Mars, do something with ISS which NASA spending about 5 billion per year on. So continue ISS while doing Moon, but before Mars, end in some fashion ISS [transfer operation to some other party or whatever- basically have a plan}.
So in terms Mars exploration, roughly it’s stop paying for ISS, and paid for Mars program, and maybe add 1 billion per year [or keep with growth of budgets of all the other governmental dept and agencies- which NASA has not done for decades]. Anyone favor of getting rid of George Bush’s dept of education?? It not helping anyone. Just to name one. And not happy about Bush’s homeland security morass of utter incompetence and vast corruption.
NASA is spending 20 billion per year, not exploring the Moon and Mars.
Baloney. The only people who have been to the Moon were sent by NASA.
How many rovers has NASA sent to Mars — 6, right? And another one going next year?
There have been missions to comets.
Cassini. The Huygens probe. Both major feats of exploration.
Dragonfly was just announced — a drone to fly on Titan.
All these constitute exploring the solar system.
–David Appell says:
July 16, 2019 at 7:58 PM
NASA is spending 20 billion per year, not exploring the Moon and Mars.
Baloney. The only people who have been to the Moon were sent by NASA.–
Tomorrow starts 50th Year Anniversary of Apollo.
NASA had the Saturn V rocket, largest rocket, ever, and sent 12 crew to lunar surface.
–How many rovers has NASA sent to Mars 6, right? And another one going next year?–
I believe NASA only space agency to successful land spacecraft on Mars, and it seems the count is 9 which were successful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars
–There have been missions to comets.
Cassini. The Huygens probe. Both major feats of exploration.
Dragonfly was just announced a drone to fly on Titan.
All these constitute exploring the solar system.–
You look in telescope and call that, exploring the solar system.
Some believe looking in telescopes should be the only way to explore space.
I will note you don’t count ISS as exploring the solar system, and a large portion of NASA’s budget.
Somewhat recently NASA send a spacecraft to Pluto- still getting data back, and has secondary target selected to visit.
And Voyager 1 is furthest from Earth.
The Parker Solar Probe has gone closest to the Sun and will get even closer.
Their are lots scientists who are completing to do their various pet projects, and there is large focus has been on Mars.
But crewed exploration is much better way to explore the Moon or Mars. Many agree the we need a Lunar and Mars program which has systematic focus of exploring the Moon and Mars.
It seems we would not be exploring Mars robotically as much as we are without the goal to actually go to Mars, which has been the plan since the 1980’s. Though not a realistic plan, but…
So you just disproved your original point, by listing all the ways NASA *IS* exploring the solar system.
–David Appell says:
July 18, 2019 at 2:10 PM
So you just disproved your original point, by listing all the ways NASA *IS* exploring the solar system.–
The public is giving NASA about 20 billion dollar per year to explore space.
Another role of NASA is to provide congress with knowledge regarding of what congress should spending money on regarding space exploration.
I think NASA has failed to inform Congress and NASA has failed to explore space.
I see no reason for NASA to make rockets.
Because NASA has failed to inform the Congress, the Senate is essentially building a rocket, SLS {the Space Launch System or also called the Senate Launch System}. It was suppose to be launched before 2017, and no one can guess when it’s going to be launched.
So now and always most of what most people would call space exploration has NOT been launched by NASA built rockets. And I would say NASA was largely responsible for destroying US launch market [the same rockets used for exploration].
Of course US military requires US rocket companies, so it funded the development of EELV:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Space_Launch
One could say that after SpaceX was slightly helped by US military, that NASA did finally start assisting US rocket development of SpaceX and others in terms for use ISS COT program- and NASA no longer had the Shuttle.
I would also say NASA has shot itself in the foot regarding past efforts to explore the Moon. And I would note it require US military to discover water in the lunar poles.
It almost seems US military is more of civilian space agency than NASA.
Why bother?
There is nothing more enjoyable than spending other people’s money.
cam…”Colonizing the Moon is doable with chemical rockets. Colonizing Mars and the asteroids wont make sense until we have nuclear rockets”.
Don’t you watch Star Trek and Stargate SG-1? They now have warp drives, worm holes, and star gates. Heck, with a star gate, you just pop in one end and come out millions of light years away in seconds.
They even have subspace generators and traveling through time is no problem.
Listening to them talk reminds me of climate alarmists, and other scientists talking about the Big, Bang, black holes, and space-time curvature.
Gordon Robertson
Rather than just blindly reject current scientific theories based upon your outdated and limited thought process.
YOU: “Listening to them talk reminds me of climate alarmists, and other scientists talking about the Big, Bang, black holes, and space-time curvature.”
Maybe you should read the observations and evidence that support the theories you reject. They may not be the correct theories but they do have supporting evidence for each of them and in some cases they have lots of evidence. At this time no better theory has been developed that explains the observed phenomena. You certainly have not come up with any valid ideas but you are so much smarter than all the scientists that you are certain they are wrong.
It must be fun to be as godlike and arrogant as you are. When you post you sound like a crackpot that just makes up stuff. You can’t understand molecular vibrations even when I have linked you to videos explaining them. The think all EMR is generated by electron transitions which is total crap and very stupid on your part. Electron transitions require quite a bit of energy to achieve but you are no able to calculate this but you are certain that you are right on all things even though you have zero supporting evidence for any of your warped ideas.
The theories you reject are based upon observed evidence. You ideas are based upon no evidence and just mostly made up from your crackpot thought process.
N,
You wrote in response to GR –
” . . . you are so much smarter than all the scientists . . . “.
Are you damning him with faint praise? Newton was wrong about the corpuscular theory of light, Tyndall was wrong about the meteoric origin of the Sun’s heat, and Lord Kelvin was wrong about the age of the Earth.
I must be smarter than all of them, wouldn’t you say? So-called climate scientists are not even in the same class as real scientists like Newton, Tyndall and Lord Kelvin.
You can’t even come up with a theory of GHE, can you? Or a description of the GHE, for that matter!
How stupid is that? Nearly as stupid as believing that Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist, or that Michael Mann actually won a Nobel Prize, as he claimed in court documents. You aren’t gullible enough to believe such nonsense, are you?
Cheers.
Norman, rather than just blindly attacking others, based upon your outdated and limited thought process, maybe you should learn some physics
It must be fun to be as godlike and arrogant as you are. When you post you sound like a crackpot that just makes up stuff. You can’t understand that a racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis. You can’t understand that all fluxes are not the same. You can’t understand that “cold” does NOT warm “hot”. You can’t understand that a power flux can NOT be treated as energy. You are certain that you are right on all things even though you have zero supporting evidence for any of your warped ideas.
A racehorse is a poor example, because a horse can’t run in all directions, only forward and backwards.
Replace the horse by yourself.
Then it’s clear you are rotating as you go around the track, because your field of vision sweeps through 360 degrees. (Same for the horse, of course.)
If you weren’t rotating you’d remain facing in the direction you were at the track’s starting gate. On the back stretch you’d be running backwards. Your field of vision would remain the same throughout the race.
How can you still not even understand what we are trying to explain to you?
Because your explanations are wrong.
The entire scientific community says you’re wrong. NASA says you’re wrong. My own understanding says you’re wrong.
And you think I’m going to believe you just because you say I have to.
Ha.
Your comments demonstrate that, rather than understanding our arguments and disagreeing, as some here do, you actually don’t understand what we’re trying to explain.
Until you have demonstrated that you understand, whether or not you choose to “believe” us is immaterial.
norman…”Maybe you should read the observations and evidence that support the theories you reject. They may not be the correct theories but they do have supporting evidence for each of them and in some cases they have lots of evidence”.
1)Big Bang theory…based on two main suppositions.
i)there is Doppler shifting in the spectra of stars that suggest some are moving away from a centre and others are moving toward it. This is supposedly regarded as evidence of a Big Bang.
ii)there is an alleged residual heating of the atmosphere at around 4K. That is presumed by wannabee physicists to be the heat left over from the BB.
That’s it Norman….the entire evidence. Number i) presumes a known size for the universe and a known centre. Number ii) is measuring EM energy and claiming it as heat. That’s downright silly.
2)black holes….the theory has changed over the past few decades.
i)old theory…stars at end of life run out of fuel. They expand into Red Giants then begin to collapse. Some collapse and blow up as a supernova and some collapse into an extremely dense neutron star. For no known reason, some collapse further into a super dense black hole. There is absolutely no explanation for that process.
ii)the new theory claims a black hole is a space-time anomaly, which is the height of silliness. Neither time, which has no physical existence, or space, which is a definition by humans based on a theorized x,y,z projection into space, have the properties to produce a super-dense mass that can bend light.
3)space-time theory…describes a three dimensional space based on the human defined Cartesian coordinate system or polar coordinate system coupled to a 4th dimension of time.
That is nothing is coupled to nothing. Neither of the 4 dimensions exist in the physical universe.
I regard space-time as a major gaffe by Einstein. If you read his paper on relativity, he begins talking about acceleration without talking about the forces and masses involved. In other words, he is using kinematics to explain the relative motion of a human in a box then arriving at very strange relationships between time and relative motion.
Relative motion has nothing to do with time or human measurement. Motion of a mass is directly related to a driving force and any opposing forces. Relative motion of the same has been royally screwed up by the less than perfect human mind which often fails to observe correctly, without illusion.
Space-time is about illusions in the human mind.
Along the way, he defined time as the ‘hands on a clock’ which is absurd. Therefore an observer observing relative motion with a clock in hand has no concern about the forces and masses involved nor does he have to worry that time has no existence.
Using such thought experiments, Einstein concluded that time could dilate and the length of a measuring stick could change length as it neared the speed of light.
The inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, an expert on time, found Einstein’s claims preposterous. He claimed Einstein knew nothing about measurement and that his theory of relativity is not a theory at all. That’s is likely true since he was a theoretical physicist who betrayed his own claims that physics should be about real observation and not about speculation.
You can blindly accept all those theories if you like but there are serious questions that need to be answered and they are not being answered. Rather, we have modern scientists blindly accepting paradigms without asking questions at all.
That “Bussard Revisited” link imagines that humanity may master the art of converting matter into energy with 100% efficiency. Very fanciful but in my mind less absurd than using wormholes for space travel.
Even with today’s primitive understanding of physics rockets based on thermonuclear reactions appear to be possible, opening the prospect of commercial traffic throughout our solar system.
At a steady acceleration of one “gee” you can get to Jupiter in a couple of weeks.
Listening to them talk reminds me of climate alarmists, and other scientists talking about the Big, Bang, black holes, and space-time curvature.
Gordon, do you not understand that are you living on a curved spacetime — that the Earth’s surface is a curved space, where parallel lines eventually meet?
norman…”The think all EMR is generated by electron transitions which is total crap …”
Ironic. Both Bohr and Schrodinger defined quantum theory upon the properties of the electron, as it orbits the nucleus, therefore, according to you, they are both full of crap.
It was Bohr who described the absorp-tion/emission of EM from the electron, not me. Neither did I produce the equations describing the relationship between the nucleus, the electron, and the EM. Afraid I’ll need to blame Schroddy for that.
Where do you think I get this stuff? Unlike what you have deluded yourself into believing, I got it from Bohr, Schrodinger and others.
Gordon Robertson says:
Both Bohr and Schrodinger defined quantum theory upon the properties of the electron
Wrong. Bohr happened to use the hydrogen atom to illustrate quantum theory, but he knew every quantum particle has a deBroglie wavelength.
Schrodinger’s wave function, and his equation, apply to any quantum system.
–At a constant acceleration of one “g” it takes only days to get around the solar system. Reaching the stars takes only a few years.–
Hmm.
24 hours is 86,400 seconds
86,400 times 9.8 m/s = 846,720 m/s or 846.72 km/sec
Distance = Acceleration 1/2 times Time squared
86,400 x 86,400 times 4.9 m/s/s = 36,578,304,000 meters
Or 36,578,304 km
“The minimum distance from the Earth to Mars is:
54.6 million km
Let’s try 1/2 gee: 4.9 m/s/s for 2 days:
172,800 x 172,800 times 2.45 m/s/s = 73,156,608,000 meters
Nope, 1.5 days:
129,600 x 129,600 times 2.45 = 41,150,592,000
100,000 x 100,000 times 2.45 = 24,500,000,000
Which near 1/2 halfway point that requires turning around and accelerating the opposite direction- so you can stop at Mars.
and 100,000 second time 4.9 m/s/s = 490,000 m/s or 490 km/sec.
And at 490 km/sec in 1800 seconds [30 mins] you travel 882,000 km
Or 2400 seconds: 1,176,000 km
Did not include Earth orbital speed of about 30 km per second.
But you are NOT doing hohmann, and you are adding vectors:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vect.html
Hmm, just going to guess that it adds 2 km/sec
or add 200,000 km
24,500,000 + 1,176,000 = 200,000 = 25,876,000 km
Close but add more mins to 100,000 seconds acceleration and could be wrong about only getting 2 km/sec from Earth orbital velocity.
Plus have match Mars orbital velocity. About 28 hour speeding up and speeding down if going 1/2 gee.
And with 1 gee, say 76,000 seconds
76,000 times 76,000 times 4.9 = 28,302,400,000 meter
28,302,400 km
And at 1 gee for 76,000 seconds = 744,800 m/s 744.8 km/sec
And turn around quickly in 30 min, go another 1.34 million km
So speed up for 21 hours than slow down for 21 hours
and save about 15 to 16 hours vs 1/2 gee.
With chemical rocket I think one could get to mars from Earth in about 1 or 2 months.
One 1 month would require a lot delta-v, similar in excessive waste of energy accelerating at 1 gee, and two months also uses considerable amount chemical energy, similar to doing the 1/2 gee acceleration.
But I think NASA could do it in about 3 months or less with chemical rockets, but only for crew. And roughly cost about 1/2 billion dollar for additional rocket fuel as compared to 6 to 7 month trip.
6 to 7 month is hohmann + patched conic
and 3 month is non hohmann trajectory. But similar to hohmann in that it only burn it’s rockets at Earth perigee and uses about 75% of Earth’s orbital velocity.
Anyhow I think one have Mars settlements just by using chemical rockets. I think first class or most expensive schedule flight per seat with chemical rocket would be 2 months, and coach is 3 months. And cheap could involve first going to Venus orbit and doing hohmann + patched conic to Mars which should take less than 4 months [but first got to get Venus, the whole trip of earth to Venus to Mars would take longer, than Earth to Mars with hohmann + patched conic. But from Venus you sooner and different launch windows, and having different arrival times at Mars could have economic value.
Or every two years one will have departure from Earth over period a few month. And not be able to go to mars from Earth for 1 1/2 years, but you could go to Venus and then go to Mars at time within that 1 1/2 years.
Or of course advantage 1 gee or 1/2 gee is you can leave all the times from Earth to get to Mars- but using huge amount of energy, it’s somewhere around 1/1000th the cost to go another star system.
Or about 100 times the cost of going there slower.
Why bother?
We have stuffed our own planet, what purpose is served by going to another?
DMT,
You wrote –
“We have stuffed our own planet, . . . “.
Maybe you and your invisible playmate have stuffed your personal imaginary planet. Mine seems fine, life is good, and the universe seems to be unfolding as it should.
Are you perhaps confusing fantasy with fact?
Cheers.
–DMT says:
July 16, 2019 at 4:24 AM
Why bother?
We have stuffed our own planet, what purpose is served by going to another?–
I don’t see it as about going to another planet, but effecting Earth.
Or only millions of people want to go Mars, and if they do they, it effects billions people on Earth.
I assume the unlikely situation of NASA doing what I think they should do.
That means within 10 years perhaps within 5 years, we know whether regarding the Moon if and where there is the better locations of mining lunar water.
And it basically should indicate whether there is need for such things as lunar bases on the Moon. Or many countries are considering if this as possible, will know whether should focus on it, or not.
If highly positive, one will have commercial lunar water mining within 10 years, if highly negative, it is removed as option or at least until circumstances change.
Probably it’s somewhere in the middle, if exactly in middle, it’s not as good as result in terms making any kind decision regarding the Moon. Which say is worst result. Or does help much in terms of making any rational decision, but in broad range of somewhere in the middle which is most likely, probably will help make rational choices.
Then you have the unexpected discoveries connected to all exploration activity [this is always the case with any exploration].
Let’s say it is negative, then NASA should consider what other options are there for mining water and making rocket fuel in space.
But in meantime, whether negative or positive results, NASA starts it’s manned Mars exploration.
In terms dollars spent a negative results diminishes the amount per year that NASA will get for there Mars program.
And if don’t waste money on Mars, that is good news for you. But also a correct decision to make.
But if NASA does a good job exploring the Moon to get this negative result, it still net positive for NASA, it’s proven NASA can do things like this. But NASA screws it up, it also good US citizens, because it points a problem of NASA, opens steps to do something about it- including cancelling NASA altogether- Also good for you who don’t want waste money on government space exploration.
So large part of lunar exploration in my view is testing NASA ability and/or inability. And I tend to think it’s somewhat too common in NASA, that they don’t want to be tested. But it is in the public interests that NASA is tested.
And it’s possible the test, is also “somewhere in the middle”, and also, less useful as a result.
I see no advantage canceling NASA, other than it would cause massive re-organization, and something new would be created which attempts to do what NASA was suppose to do. One may “lose” a decade of time and gets confusion, and perhaps many failed attempts trying to get something which resembles a space agency which can serve the US interests. Or it’s just ends and is replace by things like “GoFundMe” and perhaps has wacky religious connections.
But in terms of positive, NASA explores Mars and finds if and where there sites for human settlements. And again if highly positive, you get Mars settlement within 10 years.
Now the most important bit about space in general, is there is a 300 billion dollars global satellite market.
And without it- we don’t have global communication, internet, global security, etc. Or trying get equal capability that this global satellite market delivers would cost tens of trillions per year, to world with about 1/3 cost being to US. And not counting the cost of all wars it might start.
And without this global industry, NASA would cease to exist.
So commerical lunar mining, would add to the global satellite business, and Mars settlement in addition would super charge it.
@gbaikie,
I can send you a spreadsheet that does those calculations accurately.
It gets really interesting as the space ship approaches light speed. Traveling 27,000 light years to the galactic core takes 10.6 years according to “Ship Time”.
Just wondering, have you calculated how much energy would be required to sustain a 1g acceleration for a ship the mass of, say, the Space Shuttle?
For 24 hours:
“86,400 times 9.8 m/s = 846,720 m/s or 846.72 km/sec
Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass times velocity squared
[when get near light velocity it’s different}
Shuttle orbitor not fueled or loaded:
“Empty weight: 171,961 lb (78,000 kg)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_orbiter
Joules:
78,000 kg x .5 times 846,720 squared
39000 x 716,934,758,400 =
2.796 x 10^16 joules
Of rocket is not 100% efficient, the above is amount
kinetic given to a space shuttle by rocket power which
involves very specific impulse [high temperature or high velocity
rocket exhaust] Or high ISP.
Or you can’t do this with chemical rocket- you can’t make something go 846.72 km/sec. But you could have chemical rocket that provides the same amount of joules energy.
“9×10^16 J Mass-energy in 1 kilogram of antimatter (or matter)”
So something 1 kg of antimatter could impart that much energy to Shuttle and make go 846.72 km/sec.
But to make 1 kg of antimatter is something like more energy than we use on planet earth for years. Trillion of dollars of electrical energy at wholesale prices.
But “6.3×10^13 J Yield of the Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II ”
A thousand of these size nuclear bombs could be used- well better bombs, but small nukes, and it could cost less than 1 billion dollar. See Nuclear orion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
Of course 1000 of these bombs have a fair amount of mass- a million times more mass then the antimatter. No maybe about 100,000 times more mass- but would have look it up.
You don’t need antimatter unless doing star travel- unless someone come up with cheap way to make it [or find it].
The shuttle at that velocity:
“1×10^16 J Estimated impact energy released in forming Meteor Crater”
If hit Moon [it would vaporize in Earth atmosphere] would make a slightly bigger crater than Meteor Crater.
I calculated a fuel consumption of 3 kg/second to propel a 100,000 tonne spaceship.
The power amounts to 3 X (3 X 10^8)^2 = 2.7 X 10^17 Watts
Such a large number is difficult to comprehend so let us compare it to the world’s electric generating capacity. The latest figures (2018) suggest 2,860 GW or 2.86 X 10^12 Watts.
Thus a PAR (Proton Annihilation Rocket) need to deliver ~100,000 times more power than all of the world’s electrical power plants combined.
According to Wikipedia the mass of the space shuttle is 2,030 tonnes so you would only need 2,000 times the global electrical consumption.
At this point your BS detector should be howling.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html
@DA,
Thanks for that link on the Relativistic Rocket. Here is another one you may like:
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2016/12/24/ask-ethan-could-we-reach-the-speed-of-light-by-christmas-synopsis
At first blush it looks as if Ethan’s figures disagree with mine.
For example his figure for trip time to the galactic center is ~30 years compared to my 10.6 years.
His figure is for a “Round Trip” whereas my figure is for a “Fly By”.
3 kg/s of what? Any mass, where E=mc2?
DA said:
“3 kg of what?”
This shows you did not read my explanation of the PAR (Proton Annihilation Rocket).
The Bussard “Ram Scoop” collects inter-stellar gases that are primarily hydrogen The PAR converts hydrogen atoms into energy with 100% efficiency.
That should trigger your BS detector!
DA said:
“Any mass, where E=mc2?”
The power amounts to 3 X (3 X 10^8)^2 = 2.7 X 10^17 Watts. My apologies for not spelling this out in detail.
The energy released by annihilating 3 kg of mass per second is calculated by multiplying the mass (3 kg) by the speed of light squared (300,000,000 meters per second).
If there is ever a rocket like that, the owner will need to be careful where he points it as it could be a devastating weapon.
What’s the point of colonizing the Moon, except as a way station on the way to Mars and maybe elsewhere?
David, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn
“As Feynman said
It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.
It is ironic that you and other deniers keep quoting Feynman.
There is strong experimental evidence for the greenhouse effect and AGW; none for your delusions.
EM,
You cannot even usefully describe the GHE, can you? Some science. Do you expect anybody to believe you can devise an experiment to test something you can’t even describe?
As to AGW, this is a completely different thing. Mankind produces much heat. Heat produces hotter thermometers. Why you and other GHE true believers think this is mysterious is a mystery to me.
Maybe you have an alternative hypothesis for thermometers indicating higher temperatures? No?
Phew! For a moment there, I thought you might think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! Only a delusionally psychotic pseudoscientific climate cultist would believe such nonsense.
Carry on trying to deny, divert and confuse. No GHE. No CO2 heating.
Cheers.
E-man, would you mind sharing that “strong experimental evidence” for the GHE and AGW?
I’ve likely already seen all the nonsense, but maybe you have something new to add to the comedy?
The atmosphere and its albedo reflect away 30% of the incoming solar energy making the earth cooler. Remove the atmosphere and the earth gets hotter. Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory claims exactly the opposite.
That the earth without an atmosphere would be similar to the moon, blazing hot lit side, deep cold dark, is not just intuitively obvious, but that scenario is supported by UCLA Diviner lunar mission data and studies by Nikolov and Kramm (U of AK).
This actual and indisputable fact negates, refutes, guts and tosses RGHE theory straight onto the long established rubbish heap of failed scientific theories together with Vulcan, phlogiston, Martian canals, luminiferous aether, spontaneous generation, tabula rasa, phrenology and cold fusion.
No RGHE, no CO2 warming, no man caused climate change or global warming.
Since the earth is actually hotter without an atmosphere, radiative greenhouse effect goes straight into the historical trash bin of failed theories and all the handwavium, pseudo-science, thermodynamic nonsense pretending to explain it follows close behind.
The existence of the greenhouse effect is obvious:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
DA keeps using the same link he doesn’t understand.
Nothing new.
Don’t bail out again. Tell us what about that figure I don’t understand.
DA, Institutionalized Pseudoscience Climate Comedy (IPCC) claims the GHE means CO2 can heat the planet. That spectrum you keep linking to indicates that some atmospheric gases absorb surface-emitted infrared. Surface emitted infrared COOLS the surface.
Learn some physics.
Nick Schroeder
It is really amazing that people like you post such comments on a blog owned and managed by meteorologist and climate scientist Roy Spencer, who
– is very well convinced of the role of GHE within our atmosphere, and
– has written many interesting, alarmism-free head posts on his own blog about that.
Nikolov and Zeller have lost any credibility since long a time (especially by publishing articles under stoopid nicknames like ‘Volokin and Rellez).
Gerhard Kramm has been debunked ten years ago by Chris Ho-Stuart and A.P. Smith.
Both N&Z as well as Kramm together with Dlugi and Moelders started from the wrong assumption that we must consider Earth in this case as having the same albedo as the Moon (0.12), what is wrong.
“Remove the atmosphere and the earth gets hotter.”
You have been contradicted about that at WUWT.
Without an atmosphere (or with an atmosphere containing no IR absorbing/reemitting IR, that’s the same), all radiation emitted by Earth between 5 and 40 micron would directly escape to space, what would cool Earth far more efficiently as is actually the case.
But you are here not the only one denying this!
Welcome to this blog’s pseudoskeptic deniers, Nick Schroeder.
Bindidon, without an atmosphere, Earth would become like the Moon.
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman says:
“… without an atmosphere, Earth would become like the Moon.”
This is not the challenging situation.
Simply because Earth is a planet with 70% water at its surface.
What is of interest is to compare our planet as it is now with the same planet lacking water vapor (and pfff! the little bit of CO2), e.g. when it reaches a point in space and time where at least one of the three Milankovitch cycles has reached maximal influence.
The effect of this situation is then that, due to the extreme cooling of the planet, all water vapor precipitates, and CO2’s atmospheric concentration subsequently decreases to a minimum.
With as result that Earth then moves to a frozen iceball.
The albedo of ice is 0.3 (by accident identical to the actual value).
Thus, computations of the temperature of an Earth lacking any water vapor are with 255 K simply correct.
Of course it would be different if Earth was a nake mass of rock! But that is not the point.
*
“Learn some physics.”
What does allow you to write that, Huffman?
Who are you? You never referred to any own relevant work in this domain.
If you were a person with real physics knowledge, you would never behave so arrogant, but would show the results you managed to obtain instead.
Thus I consider you a layman as I am, not less, not more. You are, like the insulting Robertson troll, not even able to process time series.
So what!
Except I get the physics correct, and you get it wrong, Bindidon.
Nothing new.
DA…”Roy Spencer, who
is very well convinced of the role of GHE within our atmosphere, and
has written many interesting, alarmism-free head posts on his own blog about that”.
The difference is that Roy does not support the catastrophic warming/climate change theory. He has claimed CO2 SHOULD warm the atmosphere but he has never said how much.
I can live with that.
Nick Schroeder says:
Since the earth is actually hotter without an atmosphere
Then why is the average surface temperature of the Earth greater than the average surface temperature of the Moon?
The Earth has the ability to regulate its temperature.
Learn some physics.
With or without an atmosphere?
Averages are meaningless.
Lunarific
Lit side 350 K, dark side 150 K, average 250 K, range 200 C
Uninhabitable
Earthy
Lit side 300 K, dark side 230 K, average 250 K, range 40 C.
Comfy
Identical averages, entirely different worlds.
NS: Of course averages aren’t meaningless.
Why is the average temperature of the Earth greater than the average temperature of the Moon, the opposite of what you claimed?
Identical averages, entirely different worlds.
a) that’s not true, and
b) that’s not what you claimed.
You said the Earth would be warmer without an atmosphere than with
an atmosphere.
The Moon proves you wrong.
w/o 255 K w/ 288 K = -33 C cooler
w/o 255 K assumes .3 albedo and is scientific malfeasance!!!
w/o earth albedo similar to lunarific 0.11.
0.3 = 957.6 W/m^2 0.11 = 1,217.5 W/m^2
Per Q = U A dT = 1/R * A * (Surf ToA)
Surf = 288 K ToA = -60 C = 213 K dT = 75 C
w/ 75 C w/o 1,217.5/957.6 * 75 C = 95.4 C
w/o atmos is 20.4 C hotter than w/ atmos and RGHE is trashed!!
Observational evidence for the GHE and its increase:
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present, J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006, Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
More papers on this subject are listed here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
DA, it makes no sense to try to support your pseudoscience, with your pseudoscience.
Learn some physics.
You lack the knowledge to even *begin* to critique those papers.
So you bail out, as usual. As I noted above.
DA, I’ll just let your pseudoscience debunk itself:
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth….”
Seeing what you want to see is NOT science. It is pseudoscience.
Learn some physics.
in·fer·ence
/ˈinf(ə)rəns
noun
a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
David, please stop trolling.
Review
“The Spectral Signature of Recent Climate Change,” Brindley & Bantges (2016)
Abstract: “Spectrally resolved measurements of the Earths reflected shortwave (RSW) and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere intrinsically contain the imprints of a multitude of climate relevant parameters. Here, we review the progress made in directly using such observations to diagnose and attribute change within the Earth system over the past four decades. We show how changes associated with perturbations such as increasing greenhouse gases are expected to be manifested across the spectrum and illustrate the enhanced discriminatory power that spectral resolution provides over broadband radiation measurements. Advances in formal detection and attribution techniques and in the design of climate model evaluation exercises employing spectrally resolved data are highlighted. We illustrate how spectral observations have been used to provide insight into key climate feedback processes and quantify multi-year variability but also indicate potential barriers to further progress. Suggestions for future research priorities in this area are provided.”
Citation: H. E. Brindley, R. J. Bantges (2016), Current Climate Change Reports, DOI: 10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5. Full text:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0039-5
Figures “a” and “b” show spectra for 2050 and 2099!
At least you find funny pseudoscience, DA.
Figures 1a and 1b?
Those figures aren’t showing spectra. And nothing about 2050 or 2099.
You’re lying.
DA, I should have known you couldn’t figure it out. Go down to the graphs of spectra.
And notice how quick you are to falsely accuse.
Nothing new.
Figures 1a and 1b?
Or other figures?
DA, this is over your head.
Next time you go to McDonald’s, ask the cashier to help you.
The liar won’t even explain himself. It’d ruin his lie.
DA, I should have known you couldn’t figure it out. Scroll down to the graphs of spectra. This is not hard. You just can’t think for yourself.
But, notice how quick you are to falsely accuse.
Nothing new.
Which Figure numbers?
David, please stop trolling.
Yesterday, I intentionally omitted a paragraph placed, in Sir Isaac’s work, in front of what I uploaded and linked to in a comment above.
This blog’s best denialist has surprisingly fallen into the trap, and, surpassing my boldest expectation, replied as follows:
Bindidon you clowns are amazing. Newton agreed with all of us that the Moon rotates on its axis RELATIVE to the stars. That is obvious, due to its orbit.
Nice try, but you will need much more denial. The simple racehorse ruins your false religion.
Note, en passant, that the guy did not just write modestly: “We all agree with Newton…”. No, no.
Now I add this paragraph [35] omitted yesterday, and everybody understands what Sir Isaac had in mind with it: to consider the Moon’s situation as a being the same as that of all the planets: that it not only revolves around what attracts it (or better: around their common barycentre), but also rotates around its own axis.
*
[35] While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes: the sun in 26 days; Jupiter in 9h.56m.; Mars in 24 2/3h.; Venus in 23h.; and that in planes not much inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, and according to the orders of the signs, as astronomers determine from the spots of maculae that by turns present themselves to our sight in their bodies; and there is a like revolution of our earth performed in 24h.; and those motions are neither accelerated nor retarded by the actions of the centripetal forces, as appears by Cor. XXII, Prop. LXVI, Book I; and therefore of all others they are the most uniform and most fit for the measurement of time; but those revolutions are to be reckoned uniform not from their return to the sun, but to some fixed star; for as the position of the planets to the sun is non-uniformly varied, the revolutions of those planets from sun are rendered non-uniform.
[36] In like manner is the moon revolves about its axis by a motion most uniform in restpect to the fixed stars, viz., in 27 d.7 h.43 m., that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that its diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit; upon this account the same face of the moon always turns towards the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moon’s orbit, nearly; and hence arises a deflection of the moon’s face from the earth, sometimes toward the east, and other times toward the west, according to the position of the focus toward which it is turned; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moon’s orbit, or to the difference between its mean and true motions; and this is the moon’s libration in longitude; but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude arising from the moon’s inclination on its axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth; for that axis retains the same position to the fixed stars, nearly, and hence the poles present themselves to our view by turns, as we may understand from the example of the motion of the earth, whose poles, by reason of the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic, are by turns illuminated by the sun.
Not only is it amazing to see how accurately Sir Isaac draws these parallels between moon vs. earth and earth vs. sun!
He confirms herewith the views of many astronomers who spent, since the Babylonians, so much time in observing the moon , what he sums up in succinct thoughts, later mathematically translated in equations by Lagrange and laplace:
– rotation of the moon around its axis in the same time as it revolves around earth;
– derivation from this synchronity that
– – the moon always must show us the same side
– – the libration in longitude is due to a combination of moon’s rotation and of its position on its orbit around earth.
This is Science, as opposed to the mix of arrogance, ignorance and presumption demonstrated all the time by the ‘pseudoskeptic denial trio’ and their altar boy.
I repeat: QED – Case closed.
No need anymore for fruitless debates about racehorses, coins, cannonballs etc etc etc.
But as said: Pseudoskeptics never give up… they never admit anything!
This should help alleviate your confusion:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791
Altar boy
Don’t you REALLY understand that by writing the nonsense above, your are actually discrediting the work of one of the greatest scientists of the last 500 years?
All what I wrote are HIS OWN WORDS you can read here:
Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Princples of Natural Philosophy and His System of The World
https://tinyurl.com/y6lyg454
Feel free to retrieve Sir Isaac’s original work in Latin, translated 1729 into English. I won’t do such a tedious job for you.
Beast, don’t you REALLY understand that calling me “altar boy” (creepy), describing what I said as nonsense, and making an extended appeal to authority, are not a rebuttal to what I said in the comment? Neither is “yawn”.
For the last time
All YOU personally think and wrote here or anywhere else is of NO interest.
What matters is that you clearly answer the following question by YES or NO, and not by YO or NES, or by any other nonsense:
Do you accept what Sir Isaac Newton has described in his work, and was later mathematically proven in works of Lagrange and Laplace?
That is what matters, nothing else.
“All YOU personally think and wrote here or anywhere else is of NO interest.”
Oh, OK. I’ll stop talking to you then.
This means then in fact that you do not want to answer to the central question:
Do you accept what Sir Isaac Newton has described in his work, and was later mathematically proven in works of Lagrange and Laplace?
Since all that I personally think and write here or anywhere else is of no interest to you, then you have no interest in my response. Strange you even asked me a question.
Bindidon is frustrated because he pounds on his keyboard, relentlessly, but only nonsense comes out.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
(What an abuse!)
You perfectly know that with
All YOU personally think and wrote here or anywhere else is of NO interest.
I meant your comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791
I am not interested in because it is nothing else than a trial to divert from the central point wich still is:
Do you accept what Sir Isaac Newton has described in his work, and was later mathematically proven in works of Lagrange and Laplace?
Please answer with yes or no. Any other answer is again nothing else than dodging.
If you don’t answer, there will be some evidence that you indeed deny Newton’s, Lagrage’s and Laplace’s work.
Bindidon, if you think calculations settle the issue, you don’t understand the issue.
Bindidon, do you deny that you are trying to misrepresent the work of Newton?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
“Bindidon, if you think calculations settle the issue, you don’t understand the issue.”
As expected, you refuse to answer the question, and keep dodging around.
Because Newton did no calculation but sythesised the ideas of many others. The calculations were made later.
Therefore I can draw only one conclusion: you reject Newton’s work concerning Moon’s rotation about its axis, but lack the courage to CLEARLY WRITE it.
I wish you all the best, end of the communication. I don’t want to communicate with people lacking courage, I am with nearly 70 simply too old for that ridiculous game.
I was referring to your “mathematically proven”, nonsense. I said nothing about Newton.
You already made it clear that you had no interest in anything I have to say, which is why I don’t take your questioning too seriously. At nearly 140 I’m simply too old to communicate with people lacking consistency, courage, the ability to actually respond to an argument I made, etc.
Bindidon blabs “Because Newton did no calculation but sythesised [sic] the ideas of many others.”
Newton developed calculus to verify his theories about gravity and orbital motion. He knew things centuries ago that still aren’t widely understood today.
Newton was a genius. Today we get keyboard abusers….
Ger*an says:
Newton developed calculus to verify his theories about gravity and orbital motion.
In large part they were Kepler’s ideas on orbital motion, not Newton’s.
Just after I stated “Today we get keyboard abusers”, DA shows up.
Perfect timing!
Another insult.
Another bail out.
Both say “weakling”
Now DA, am I really insulting you, or are you just insulting yourself?
You are the one making the stupid comments. I’m the one trying to help you understand.
DrR, do you finally understand that the Moon’s velocity (or linear momentum) does not pass through the Earth?
When did I argue that it did?
DA continues to exhibit his confusion about linear momentum. He’s so confused about physics.
That’s why he makes such a good clown.
In the comment just above this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364576
That comment, and mine, has since been edited, leaving the awkward phrasing
Any body with linear momentum passing the Earth at the distance of the Moon will experience one of three effects
“passing the Earth…” doesn’t sense. The “through” after “passing” has been deleted.
Are you in fact Roy Spencer? Who else has editing access to this blog besides Roy?
DA, I saw you make the mistake yesterday. That was reflected in my comments. DREMT did nothing. No one is editing. You are delusional.
Seek professional help.
JD is right. Of course it hasn’t been edited, and of course I’m not Dr Spencer.
Plus they aren’t even my words, I was quoting Gordon.
You made a mistake, as usual, since you hardly bother reading what people are saying before you leave another nasty brown smear on the blog.
If I made a mistake, and it appears I did here, then I apologize.
Apology accepted, thank you.
Yes Bindidon, the Moon appears to be rotating on its axis, when viewed from the stars. It’s the same motion as a racehorse, which appears to be rotating on its axis, when viewed from outside the track.
But neither is actually rotating on its own axis.
QED–Case Closed.
the Moon appears to be rotating on its axis, when viewed from the stars.
About time you admitted it. Such motion is called “rotation.”
“But neither is actually rotating on its own axis.”
(DA, did you ever consider your lack of maturity was a key factor in not being able to get a job?)
A body that rotates in one inertial frame rotates in all inertial frames.
Again, you fail at basic reading comprehension, David.
“the Moon appears to be rotating on its axis, when viewed from the stars”
Appears to be. Not is. OK?
It appears to be rotating because it is. The view of someone standing on the Moon’s surface across the stars by 360 degrees.
It’s the same as if you slowed the Earth’s rotation rate down to 1 day/year. The Earth would still be rotating, and the Earth would always present the same side to the Sun (because the angular velocity of rotation is the same as the angular velocity of orbiting).
WRONG again, DA!
You can’t get it right. You don’t understand orbital motion, and you can’t learn.
If you slowed the Earth to only one rotation per complete orbit, it would STILL appear to be rotating on its axis, viewed from both inside and outside its orbit. That’s because it IS rotating on its axis.
You get too many things wrong to have any credibility. You just state things with no concern about accuracy. That puts you in the same sinking boat as the other clowns.
An orbit is a path, clown.
Incorrect, failure:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
Thats because it IS rotating on its axis.
Then so is the Moon, because there is absolutely no difference between an Earth orbiting the Sun at a revolution rate of 1 day/yr and what the Moon is doing as it orbits the Earth. None.
DrEMT wrote:
Appears to be. Not is. OK?
No, not OK. If you can stand stationary on the surface of the Moon and the entire universe sweeps across your view in one lunar period, how is it the Moon is not rotating?
(Hint: it is)
DA, your inability to understand orbital motion is amazing.
I wonder how many other things you can’t understand….
Don’t bail out again — tell me what I don’t understand about orbital motion.
You can’t understand that there are two different motions. You are obsessed with believing that orbiting is two motions. Orbiting is only ONE motion. Orbiting is changing directions around a center.
The racehorse is only performing ONE motion. It is “orbiting” around the center of the track. It is NOT rotating on its axis. It’s the same motion as the Moon.
You cannot understand because you are consumed by your false religion.
Nothing new.
Orbiting is one motion — revolving around a central point.
Rotating is a separate, independent motion — revolving around an internal axis.
They are separate motions. There can (obviously) be orbiting with rotation, or orbiting without rotation.
The Moon is both orbiting and rotating, because someone who stands on the Moon’s surface sees the entire universe sweep through their field of vision, 360 degrees.
Well DA, you reiterated very well what we’ve been teaching.
But in your last paragraph, when you tried to actually apply the teaching, your analytical skills failed you.
Maybe try the string/orange exercise….
The three stooges at least provide entertainment. But it must be demoralizing for them to always be on the losing end.
“Orbiting is one motion — revolving around a central point.”
Precisely. And an object revolving around a central point moves as per the moon, with the particles that make up the object moving in concentric circles about the central point. Study:
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b).
The rectangle, revolving about point O (the “central point”) is moving as per the moon. As you say, rotating about its own axis would be a separate, independent motion.
Understand, yet?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
And an object revolving around a central point moves as per the moon, with the particles that make up the object moving in concentric circles about the central point.
You are confusing “central points.”
There are TWO central points in this situation — the Earth’s center point, which is the point around which orbiting occurs, and the Moon’s center point, about which the Moon’s particles move.
Motions about these two points are *independent.*
Yes, David, this is what people are trying to explain to you.
JDHuffman
Thus you deny Sir Isaac Newton’s wording AND hte mathematical proof of it by Lagrange and Laplace.
And that simply on a blog, without any scientific proof.
That’s how denialists work.
Bindidon, you can’t cover up for your deficiency in physics with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
But, it appears you will try.
Nothing new.
Huffman
Either you accept what Sir Isaac Newton wrote in his own work or you do not.
Anything else coming from your side is dodging.
Why don’t simply answer with
– Yes, Sir Isaac is right, and the subsequent work done ny the French mathematicians is right too
or
– No, I disagree with Newton’s position, and Lagrange and Laplace’s work therefore is void.
Your blah blah with “… insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations” is nothing else than avoiding to answer the question above.
Newton has it right. You have it wrong. Laplace and Lagrange are not relevant to the issue.
Oh I have no problem with being wrong!
Newton wrote in his Principia
[36] In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most uniform in respect to the fixed stars {***}, viz., in 27 d.7 h.43 m., that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that its diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit; upon this account the same face of the moon always turns towards the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moons orbit, nearly; and hence arises a deflection of the moons face from the earth, sometimes toward the east, and other times toward the west, according to the position of the focus toward which it is turned; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moons orbit, or to the difference between its mean and true motions; and this is the moons libration in longitude…
{***} exactly as he wrote in [35] for all planets
Thus this is right, and my interpretation is wrong, but you are simply unable to exactly write why it is, let alone to formulate a scientific proof for this.
Thus I propose to close the discussion here, unless you come out with said proof.
I’m fine with your admission that you were wrong.
But I doubt you will be able to “close the discussion”.
You’re too addicted to pounding on your keyboard….
I repeat:
“Thus I propose to close the discussion here, unless you come out with said proof.”
If you had such a proof, there is at least 100% evidence that you would have wroten it here.
So, as usual, you stay behind redundant stuff like
“Im fine with your admission that you were wrong.”
and
“But I doubt you will be able to close the discussion.
Youre too addicted to pounding on your keyboard.”
instead of simply accurately doing the job I expected.
I’m patient, and will wait for you scientific explanation for where and how I’m wrong in my reading of Sir Isaac’s wordings in the paragraphs [35] and [36] mentioned above.
Please: NO RACEHORSES.
Thanks in advance.
b,
Newton, like yourself, assumed (without any particular reason), that a rotational axis perpendicular to the Moon’s orbital plane exists. This is an assumption not founded on any observation, and as Uranus shows, is not valid for all orbiting bodies in the Solar System.
Newton was a great man, but also made assumptions from time to time as part of the scientific method. Some were wrong. That’s life.
Appeals to authority are not always well founded.
Maybe you could provide some evidence that Newton’s assumption that the Moon has an axis of rotation aligned in any particular direction? For example, might it not be similar to that of Uranus, pointing toward the body which it orbits? Or maybe aligned along its trajectory (something like an arrow or ballistic projectile in flight)?
In addition, Venus and Uranus exhibit retrograde rotation. In the case of Venus, this would mean that each orbit removes one day from its year. After four and half billion years, why isn’t Venus furiously spinning in the opposite direction? Only joking, of course.
Newton’s assumption may have been wrong. How would you show it was correct?
Cheers.
Bindidon, you want me to prove you’re wrong?
I submit your comments as evidence.
I rest my case.
I am skeptical of the GHE for scientific reasons. But the moon rotation issue? In this case the consensus has it right.
I don’t understand why all the GHE skeptics in here have the moon rotation issue wrong. Very curious.
As Bindidon pointed out, it’s hard to argue with Newton. Newton’s Principia : the mathematical principles of natural philosophy” was a brilliant piece of work.
Here is another link to the document:
https://archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich/newtonspmathema00newtrich_djvu.txt
The money quote, again:
“In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars, viz., in 27 J . 7 h . 43 , that is, in the space of a sidereal month ; so that this diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit : upon which account the same face of the moon always respects the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moon s orbit nearly ; and hence arises a deflection of the moon s face from the earth, sometimes towards the east, and other times towards the west, according to the position of the focus which it respects.”
Bummer, man.
Newton is the guy who came up with the laws of motion. You would think he new a thing or two about the moon’s rotation. My engineering degree and profession is based on Newtonian physics, forces acting on matter.
So we have 4 or 5 clowns in here making declarations otherwise. Newton? Or the clowns? I’ll take Newton any day. The guy was a genius.
SGW, you don’t have an engineering degree. You don’t even have a high school education. You’re a child.
Grow up. Quit stealing other people’s names. And quit avoiding reality, like the MIT example that proves you wrong.
Poor clown is pissed off that I called him out on Postma’s site regarding his moon non-rotation stupidity. And Postma agreed with me that the moon rotates on its own axis. How does the underside of a bus look like anyway?
SGW, please stop trolling.
“Child Remaining Stupid”, are you more obsessed with me or Postma?
binny…”While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes: ”
binny lays a trap for us and ends up trapping himself.
In your cherry picked quote (why not post the entire article???) Newton states:
“While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes:”
Newton distinguished between a revolution about a remote axis and a ROTATION about its own axis.
Later he states:
“In like manner is the moon revolves about its axis by a motion most uniform in restpect to the fixed stars…”
He is talking about the Moon revolving about an external axis wrt the FIXED STARS.
In other words, as viewed from the Sun, the Moon appears to REVOLVE about an external axis. He says nothing about the Moon rotating about its own axis.
UN-QED.
“He is talking about the Moon revolving about an external axis wrt the FIXED STARS.”
Exactly as I explained in this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791
From the inertial reference frame (“fixed stars”) you can state that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, but not on its own axis. If it was simultaneously rotating about both, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Robertson
You are really the blithering idiot you are insulting me all the time.
You aren’t eben able to follow a discussion, and come in with your superficial reading of some details instead.
“In your cherry picked quote (why not post the entire article???) Newton states:”
And what, do you think, is this???
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364870
READ THE COMMENT form A to Z, Robertson, and stop reducing what I write to what you want to read.
*
Like your adlatus-in-deny JDHuffman, you cherry-pick yourself:
“He is talking about the Moon revolving about an external axis wrt the FIXED STARS.”
Look at paragraph [35] in the comment I linked above, Robertson, and try to understand why Sir Isaac begins [36] with “In like manner…”
This of course refers to his perfect understanding of
– the similarity of the Moon with all planets (he knew about in hids time) wrt rotation about their axis,
AND
– the similarity of the Moon with all planets wrt reckoning the revolution about their axis wrt a fixed star.
Newton was a genius, Robertson! He discovered 350 years ago what you aren’t even able to understand when simply having to read what he thought and wrote! That tells us everything about you.
I repaste here the beginning of [36], bold emphasis mine:
36] In like manner is the moon revolves about its axis by a motion most uniform in restpect to the fixed stars, viz., in 27 d.7 h.43 m., that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that its diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit; upon this account the same face of the moon always turns towards the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moon’s orbit, nearly; and hence arises a deflection of the moon’s face from the earth, sometimes toward the east, and other times toward the west, according to the position of the focus toward which it is turned; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moon’s orbit, or to the difference between its mean and true motions; and this is the moon’s libration in longitude…
As usual, you dissimulate the evidence, Robertson. I’m not sure you do this by intention; it might be due to the fact that you are unable to properly read documents. You merely scan them for what fits to your own narrative.
I would read that as Gordon described. Maybe it’s just a language barrier thing.
For a start, 35 begins:
“While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres…”
And 36 begins:
“In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most uniform in restpect to the fixed stars…”
So that suggests the axis he is referring to in 36 is the “remote centre” referred to in 35, as Gordon explained, and not the moon’s own axis.
Another thing I note from your comments is that you continually use the word “revolves” in 36 when the correct word is “revolved”. This could be a deliberate attempt on your part to subvert what he is saying, as you have done that several times.
DREMT
“Another thing I note from your comments is that you continually use the word revolves in 36 when the correct word is revolved. This could be a deliberate attempt on your part to subvert what he is saying, as you have done that several times.”
Jesus DREMT!
I mistyped the word at one or two places, and sometimes saw the mistake and corrected it.
Well, perhaps I over-stretched there. But be careful with your quoting!
Gordon squeals:
“In other words, as viewed from the Sun, the Moon appears to REVOLVE about an external axis. He says nothing about the Moon rotating about its own axis!”
This is what cultists do. They twist words to support their own delusional beliefs.
In the same paragraph as Newton mentions the moon “being revolved about its axis”, he further states:
“but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude arising from the inclination of the moon s axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth ; for that axis retains the same position to the fixed stars nearly, and hence the poles present themselves to our view by turns, as we may understand from the example of the motion of the earth, whose poles, by reason of the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic, are by turns illuminated by the sun.”
It is perfectly clear that when Newton uses the term “axis” for the moon, that he is talking about the rotation about its own axis since he states, “the inclination of the moon s axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth”. He talks about the inclination of the moon’s axis and poles. Clearly not an external axis.
Gordon is living in some delusional parallel universe.
The moon non-rotation people have all the markings of a cult:
1. Scripture Twisting: In this case, twisting the principles of physics to support their belief.
2. Exclusivity: Their group is the only true religious system.
3. Persecution complex: Us against them mentality.
4. Avoidance of and/or denial of any facts that might contradict the group’s belief system.
I rebuke thee, and darn you to heck!
A simple racehorse destroys your entire mantra, child.
Grow up.
A simple toy horse with a tooth through its center of mass destroys your delusions.
Grasping the toothpick, perform a CCW quarter orbit around an imaginary circular track, keeping the left side of the horse facing the center of orbit. You HAVE to spin the toothpick constantly between your fingers to keep the same side of the horse facing the center of orbit. Spinning the toothpick rotates the horse on its axis, clown.
tooth = toothpick
As if seeing things the way you do is hard.
Duh.
Child, at the quarter orbit, you have provided the turning motion to replicate orbiting. Now, still at the quarter orbit point, rotate the horse CW. You will see different sides. Now, rotate the horse CCW. You will see different sides.
If the horse is actually rotating on its axis, you will see both all sides, from all directions. If the horse is not rotating, you will only see one side from inside the track.
It’s the same motion as the Moon. See if you can get an adult to explain it to you.
I’d say it’s fairly ambiguous earlier on. It’s fairly clear once he is talking about the libration of latitude that he is referring to a property of the the moon itself, however gbaikie has already done an excellent job here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359222
Of describing how you could define a so-called “axis of rotation” in a sphere that is not actually rotating on its own axis.
June global average surface temperature at a record high for the month, according to both JMA and GISS.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/07/15/earth-just-had-its-hottest-june-record-track-warmest-july/
ren must be on vacation, so DA is reporting the weather in his place.
THAT is something new….
(When does ren return from vacation, DA?)
Ren is also having a spell of treatment here at the Denialist Dreamtime Retirement Home. His is a special case.
Begone, troll!
JMA GMST 30-yr trend: +0.15 C/dec
GISS GMST 30-yr trend: +0.19 C/dec
High cirrus clouds overhead –> 26.3 F
Ground –> 91.1 F
Surface is warming the atmosphere, again.
Cite your sources.
And explain what the hell you’re talking about.
DA, I’m talking about reality.
You need to pay closer attention, so you can learn.
Just typing two numbers is not “reality.”
DA says typing is not reality!
A lot of clowns are going to be unhappy with that….
So David, you don’t believe the surface is warming the atmosphere?
Or is the atmosphere warming the surface?
DA,
You wrote –
“Or is the atmosphere warming the surface?”
Of course not. At night, in the absence of sunlight, the surface cools. No heating there. Even where a low level inversion exists at night, and the atmosphere is hotter than the surface, the surface still cools.
Basic physics, which I would expect someone with a PhD in Physics to understand. For all I know, you may have fallen on your head, and lost your memory of such things to some traumatic brain injury. You probably can’t remember, if this is the case, but maybe you could consider the possibility. It would explain some of the things you are obsessed with.
You don’t need to think me. Im here to help.
Cheers.
DA,
Which way does energy flow?
I think the big problem of any Lunar base is the near impossibility of transporting construction materiel to the moon.In my opinion (and NASA’s) you must use Lunar material if you want any reasonable living space. NASA likes the idea of using lava tubes or other cave’s ,but space is still very limited.
I think we could send up robot’s capable of cutting the moon rock and building stone igloo’s. The heavy weight of the stone would hold back the internal air pressure and reduce the radiation danger.
Igloos are the only domed structure that doesn’t need support during construction and they are simple enough that a robot or 3 could set about building them in advance of any people the interior would need to be coated to provide insulation and sealing but spray foam is compact and light enough to ship there.
if your robot can make one it can make 100 and you will want some room.
Well, concerning this record June temps, I am a bit suspicious, because Nick Stokes reports for the month
– (1) for GISS, an increase of 0.07 C up from May, but wrt 1951-1980, what is, adjusted to UAH’s baseline (1981-2010), about 0.03 C
but he reports
– (2) for his own NCEP/NCAR index, he gives a decrease of 0.05 C down from May (wrt 1994-2013, -0.04 C displacement wrt UAH for 1981-2010, thus near zero), but this decrease is the third in sequence.
What however I’m ready to take more serious is the report of Japan’s Met Agency because they show the coolest, directly evaluated surface time series (WeatherBELL is similar, but is based on a reanalysis model).
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jun_wld.html
More evidence which, I am sure, will be vigorously denied by the usual inmates:
“Record temperatures across much of the world over the past two weeks could make July the hottest month ever measured on Earth, according to climate scientists.
The past fortnight has seen freak heat in the Canadian Arctic, crippling droughts in Chennai and Harare and forest fires that forced thousands of holidaymakers to abandon campsites in southern France and prompted the air force in Indonesia to fly cloud-busting missions in the hope of inducing rain.
If the trends of the first half of this month continue, it will beat the previous record from July 2017 by about 0.025C, according to calculations by Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford, and others.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/16/july-on-course-to-be-hottest-month-ever-say-climate-scientists
DM,
You quoted (amongst other silliness) –
” . . . If the trends of the first half of this month continue, it will beat the previous record from July 2017 by about 0.025C, according to calculations by Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford, and others.
Ooooh! A trend! Qualified with an “if” , even. “If” my bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle.
This is your evidence of something you can’t even describe? A prediction of the future?
The Earth has cooled since it had a molten surface, in case you hadn’t noticed. Antarctica is now covered by ice, so fear of death by boiling, roasting, frying or toasting is exaggerated.
Maybe you could try to describe this GHE for which you claim to have evidence, but you won’t succeed. Nobody has.
No GHE. No CO2 heating.
Cheers.
“If” my bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle.”
You mean, if my wheelchair had three wheels…
“..so fear of death by boiling, roasting, frying or toasting is exaggerated.”
I would be more worried about tonight’s dinner being ruined again by cook boiling, roasting, frying or toasting everything she touches. The Denialist Dreamtime Retirement Home is not renowned for its culinary efforts.
nr,
You wrote –
“You mean, if my wheelchair had three wheels
How many wheels does your wheelchair have? If it had a different number, it would still be described as a wheelchair, would it not?
Maybe you have not been keeping up to date with your “logical trolling” lessons. If you cannot even describe this GHE which the pseudoscientific climate cultists seem to worship, then senseless trolling is your only refuge, I suppose.
Carry on acting the fool. It will no doubt impress the heck out of the usual crowd of fools, frauds, and fakers.
Cheers.
May I point out that the most accurate prediction of the month was mine predicting the “moon doesn’t rotate” complainers would soon arrive?
Seldom has so little been said by so few in so many posts.
PB
“May I point out that the most accurate prediction of the month was mine predicting the “moon doesn’t rotate” complainers would soon arrive?”
This was indeed a prediction very, very difficult to establish.
Sincere congratulations for this tremendous work!
“Seldom has so little been said by so few in so many posts”
Yeah, the “Spinners” really have nothing, and they’re so repetitive.
NASA says the moon rotates.
And you think I’m supposed to accept whatever YOU say?
What an ego.
DA, no one expects you to leave your cult.
That would require you learning to think for yourself.
Just more insults? That’s weak. You’re frustrated because you can’t convince anyone here of your incorrect notions.
It’s not frustration, DA. It’s boredom. I’m just getting bored with your silly antics.
I have no illusion that you want to learn. You are too far down that wrong road. To turn back now would be admitting you have been kidding yourself, for years.
Reality is a bitch, huh?
If you’re bored then leave.
Take charge of your life and do whatever it is you consider exciting.
OMG, now DA is giving advice on life.
That is funny.
“NASA says the moon rotates.
And you think I’m supposed to accept whatever YOU say?”
Once you have demonstrated that you understand what I’m trying to explain to you, then you can decide whether you want to accept it or not, or just go with what authority tells you.
If you like authority figures, Nikola Tesla also argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
So nobody is expecting you to accept anything on my word alone.
If you lived on the far side of the moon and didn’t have precise instruments you would not even see the moon orbits around another body that being Earth , you would however observe very clearly it spins around completely on its axes every 27 dayz.
Yes Eben, and that observation would be due to its orbital motion. The Moon does not rotate on its axis.
It’s due to the Moon’s spin rate equaling the orbital rate.
It takes both for the same lunar face to always present to the Earth.
If the Moon didn’t rotate, we’d see all sides of the Moon, like the right hand side of this animation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Just keep linking to the same erroneous graphic.
That makes you look smart….
What’s erroneous about it?
DA, not understanding your own links is a common problem with your cult.
Nothing new.
You don’t think it’s erroneous — you lied about that too.
Anytime you’re asked a direct question you try to worm your way out of it, try to change the subject, thinking no one is going to notice. When your duplicity is as noticeable as the Sun or Moon. This is what makes you a lightweight and a weakling. Many others here have also noticed you doing this.
It’s pathetic and sad. You’re sad.
DA, don’t get mad at me because your head doesn’t work. I can’t think for you. You have to learn to do that on your own.
Your questions are irresponsible. That’s why I don’t waste too much time on you. I answer whenever I think it will add value for others. Most of the time, I just consider you a joke, and respond accordingly.
Grow up, and learn some physics.
This is like a Turing test.
One group describes “orbital motion” like a machine would. They seem to think of it like a robotic arm drawing a picture of an orbit, seen from above. The robot’s program translates the pen, then rotates the pen. This would be the “Spinner” group. They think of “orbital motion” as an object translating, plus rotating on its own axis, like some sort of computer program drawing a picture on a screen. This is completely devoid of any connection to the forces involved wrt an orbiting object, or any sort of ability to visualize, or intuit, what is actually happening, like a human being can. It’s scary how many people on here choose to see it like this. They need to see animations, gifs etc, to even try to get a handle on our way of seeing it. If they see a stationary diagram, they struggle. They even complain that it’s not animated for them.
The other group think about what “orbital motion” actually is, what forces are involved, and can visualize and intuit what is actually happening. They don’t need to see gifs, or even diagrams, but they have to use them to try to explain what they are saying to the machines, who just don’t possess the abilities required to get what is being said to them. The “Non-Spinners” see a written description of “orbital motion”, and the forces involved:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
and without even needing to see the accompanying animations in the “Newton’s Cannonball” link, understand that “orbital motion” is better described as an object rotating about a central point, with no rotation on its own axis. One motion, not two.
There’s no point talking to the machines, because their programming will not let them see things any other way. You just have to hope you can get through to the people.
As SGW mentions, Newton, or the clowns? Easy choice. Newton.
Kinematics? Or pretend clown physics? Easy choice. Kinematics.
Who is SGW? Is that your slightly less immature twin brother?
DA,
You need special glasses to view that graphic, along with a tin hat. Once you have these two items, your eyes will be opened, and you will see the truth!
Well that’s one way to admit you’re unable to see things from our point of view. I wasn’t aware that was something to be proud of. I can see it the way you see it, after all.
“Yes Eben, and that observation would be due to its orbital motion. The Moon does not rotate on its axis.”
Go back to skool , return your science degree diploma and ask for your money back ,
you have been scammed on your education.
Eben, it doesn’t take much education to realize a racehorse is not rotating on it axis. It just takes the ability to think for yourself.
Try it, you might like it….
Is called “angular momentum” either you have some or you have none, it’s just basic fizzix,
If you claim moon has no angular momentum you are scientifically retarded.
The Moon has angular momentum based on its orbit. But it has no angular momentum about its center of mass.
This is why aliens do not contact you
e,
You wrote –
“Is called “angular momentum” either you have some or you have none, it’s just basic fizzix,”
As JDH pointed out, there is angular momentum, and then there is angular momentum.
The Moon orbits the Earth. The Earth/Moon system orbits the Sun. The Solar System apparently orbits the centre of the local galaxy, which orbits . . .
That is just in one plane, of course. Everything possesses angular momentum in respect to something somewhere – except maybe at the exact point centre of creation. And of course, no matter could be involved, because it would then be rotating and possess some angular momentum about its axis.
I’m fairly sure that one cannot establish an axis about which the Moon rotates, because there seems to be no rotation in respect to any axis through its centre of gravity.
Another question might be raised about whether geostationary satellites rotate about their CG while pointing their antennae at a fixed point on the Earth’s surface. Has anybody claimed that a geostationary satellite rotates on its axis once per revolution? I don’t know, and it seems about as unimportant as the question of whether the Moon can be considered to be rotating about an axis passing through its centre of gravity.
All good fun.
Cheers.
eben…”you would however observe very clearly it spins around completely on its axes every 27 dayz”.
So, if you were standing on the side facing the Earth, and throughout the orbit you are always facing the Earth, how would you complete your 360 degree rotation about the Moon’s axis?
At your next dance hold your partner’s hands and spin.
Look at her face and it stays in front of you. Look behind her and you will see the background moving as you rotate.
Your inner ears will also tell you you are rotating.
E-man, or you could learn about orbital motions.
EM,
Somehow, magically, your partner goes from non spinning to spinning instantaneously upon contact with the partner. It’s a dangerous dance move. Serious injuries may result.
“At your next dance hold your partner’s hands and spin.
Look at her face and it stays in front of you. Look behind her and you will see the background moving as you rotate.
Your inner ears will also tell you you are rotating.”
Indeed, but neither of you are rotating about your own axes, are you? You are both rotating about a “barycenter” where your hands meet.
The argument is, and always has been, “the moon does not rotate on its own axis“.
Capiche?
These clowns actually enjoy making fools of themselves. Amazing!
= HGS can’t explain what’s wrong with what I said.
Gordon squeals: “So, if you were standing on the side facing the Earth, and throughout the orbit you are always facing the Earth, how would you complete your 360 degree rotation about the Moons axis?!”
You stand still, clown.
Gordon violates the axiom, “there’s no such thing as a stupid question”.
Folks… Didn’t stop by to talk about the moon… I would like to present my charts proving just how important El Nino is to all of this, and the link to the sun.
Chart #1 – The UAH data is directly tied to the El Nino cycle. There is no other climate forcer more important than this.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1REud2hTHZiRYsNw_3O6dTPR4BJurHJe2/view?usp=sharing
Chart #2 – 170 years of Global ocean data (HADSST3) shows us that despite having a 100 year uptrend, it is quite possible that there is a pivot at 0 deg on this chart, but we have only experienced 1/2 a centennial cycle. Note the last 7 solar cycles were the strongest of the last 400 years.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QJS_EZyyBH9vqm3lFlMtGDyLCSOA7azY/view?usp=sharing
Chart #3 – For some reason, Antarctica hasn’t warmed at all. Both the UAH data, and the HADSST3 southern ocean data show no long term trend. In fact, in the last 40 years the trend has been down while the rest of the globe generally warmed. A strange divergence wouldn’t you agree? The one place we have no heat islands has 0 man made global warming.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-I3AqwbUdDgF5M_RwvWi-enWwxB1YnEf/view?usp=sharing
Chart #4 – It turns out that both the El Nino current, and the southern ocean are on an 11 year cycle – just like the sun. Both are off-set. So it isn’t until SC 24 ends and SC 25 begins where you actually see La Nina. My theory is that the increased solar activity causes the trade winds to pick up, which ends el nino. There could also be a magnetic connection, or some other connection that remains a scientific mystery. It is possible that stronger than normal El Ninos in the last 40 years have been hiding cold water in the southern ocean, and amplifying the UAH trend.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wxmoCO92TMuGpyHLNxpvlEhzb7qE29-S/view?usp=sharing
Chart #5 – With it being known El nino has an 11 year period, 3.6 year harmonic, and a 2.2 year harmonic, it is clear that 2016 was the down beat. We’ve had our 2.2 year harmonic, and now the 3.6 year harmonic is close to ending. La Nina conditions are already present in region 1, 2. Course we will have to wait for the official 3 month average for region 3.4. Here is my prediction for the next 4 years.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p28uWumqtOInP5Z9VHl7uLvDqLUL0v9w/view?usp=sharing
Please let me know what you think. This is how I look at the climate system under normal situations. We however appear to be entering a “sleep mode” where the sun goes to quiet for 35 years. How that effects this most important climate relationship is a mystery to me. Even without a grand solar min we would see -0.2 on the UAH within 4 years. Couple that with the magnetic field doing it’s own thing. Interesting times ahead for sure.
“Please let me know what you think. This is how I look at the climate system under normal situations. ”
Are you ok?
If this is what you see “under normal situations” I wonder what you would see if you were drunk.
Honestly, have you ever heard of the terms: correlation, degrees of freedom, confidence levels etc.
There should be a law against providing data to ignoramuses.
Please contact nurse ratchet for an appointment.
Troll, begone!
Dr Myki,
What I’m saying by normal situations is that the sun has been in one particular mode for our entire lives, and the entire sat record. We have no idea what to expect when it goes into GSM mode. All we have are sun spot counts and some proxy data. We don’t really know.
Why not provide constructive criticism? Pick one item you disagree with and explain yourself.
Thank God scientific data is public. Imagine a world where scientific data was private, held by the political elite, influenced by lobbyists, corporations, and the wealthy. They would determine what information we received thru biased government agencies and then thru biased media sources… “debunked” by biased online entities as well. Hmm it’s not that hard to imagine for people like me because we live it every day already as GSM information is suppressed.
Scott R
Thanks for breaking up the endless prattle on the Moon Rotation issue. I avoid this one. It goes no hundreds of posts.
On your first graphic the El Nino cycle is straight line but the temperature is upward.
If your second graph is valid that one can match the temperature somewhat.
I do not think you last graph is of value since it covers only a couple years. On Roy Spencer long term graph you can see an upward temperature increase over time.
What makes the “Moon/Rotation” issue interesting is the way it affects the clowns. They clearly abhor reality, or anything that disproves their pseudoscience.
So, they have to hate racehorses….
Norman glad to help!
Absolutely, we warmed from 1980-2016. I’m not disputing that. Look at the amplitude of the change in the UAH temperatures as we cycle thru El Nino. It’s HUGE! I believe that during these La Nina cycles of the last 40 years, the cold Antarctic waters were building up, not being fully released. That explains the 40 year decline in the southern ocean. Basically it means El Nino has a positive 40 year bias creating the trend at least in part.
The last graph is my short term prediction for UAH based on what forcing I feel the La Nina cycle will have on the earth’s climate.
Scott R
“Folks Didnt stop by to talk about the moon ”
It is not primarily a discussion about the moon, Scott. Please take some time to review the comments here. I’m sure you will discover something filigree in the background.
Congratulations for having now done the job. I hope you understand that I still do not agree about many points.
I come back to your interesting comment with a more complete reply.
cu
J.-P. D.
This is a well thought out post. I agree that there is better than even chances that we drop below 0.0C on UAH within the next 4 years, but I’m more skeptical of -0.2C. My totally subjective odds are 75% for <0.0 and 25% for <-0.2C. One mitigating factor that will continue to keep upward pressure on TLT temperatures is the seemingly never ending upward trend in oceanic heat content.
bdgwx worries: “One mitigating factor that will continue to keep upward pressure on TLT temperatures is the seemingly never ending upward trend in oceanic heat content.”
Don’t fret bdgwx, there is no “never-ending upward trend in oceanic heat content.”
Someone is yanking your chain.
bdgwx… it will be interesting to see if linear sea level trends break during the GSM. We also need to reexamine our global sea level data to make sure it properly take into account isostatic rebound. The data may have a bias due to the fact that people live in mostly tropical / mid latitude locations. Perhaps even though the rising areas are roughly 30%, compared to 70% sinking (roughly), the amplitude of the change seems much higher in the polar regions to offset that fact. I’m assuming they did their job, but I haven’t investigated it personally to know for sure. I do know that sea level in New York has been dropping for about 9 years now, and eyeballing the NOAA tides & currents map, that seems like it could be roughly the axle of rotation for the north American continent. That said, I can not make any assumptions about the cause. It could also be related to us coming off the centennial lows of the late 1800s and going into the highest solar output of the last 400 years. There could also be other sub surface processes going on giving us the sea level trend. In any case, the linear trends keep me away from pinning this on Co2, since that is not increasing at a linear rate.
David Appell wrote –
“Then why is the average surface temperature of the Earth greater than the average surface temperature of the Moon?”
Although this is an obvious gotcha (I don’t believe DA is quite so stupid as not to know the answer), others might not realise that the answer is at once both simple and complex.
The main reason is that the Moon cooled faster than the Earth due to its greater surface to volume ratio. According to NASA, the Moon’s inner and outer core are only about 330 km in radius, compared to the total radius of about 1737 km. The Earth’s figures show far slower cooling.
So once again, using averages is a pointless waste of time – like comparing apples and oranges.
Pseudoscientific climate cultists love meaningless averages. Then they can demand answers to totally irrelevant and pointless gotchas, thinking it makes them look smart. My opinion, of course. Others may think as they wish.
Cheers.
” others might not realise that the answer is at once both simple and complex.”
Ah – ha !
Here is a clue about your condition. Do you sometimes feel as though you have 2 personalities?
One that supplies simple answers and one that supplies complex answers?
Professor, it depends on the time of day and the phase of the (rotating) moon.
Sometimes he has good days, and sometimes not.
Begone, troll!
Troll, begone!
Dang! Should be one each!
Ah well, still plenty to go round.
Carry on trolling.
Cheers.
“carry on trolling”
“carry on trolling”
I have’nt seen that one.
My favourites are Carry On Nurse (1959), Carry On Doctor (1967), Carry On Again Doctor (1969) and, of course Carry On Matron (1972).
Begone, troll!
Try again:
“First of all, we need to be clear what we mean by continuous acceleration at 1g. The acceleration of the rocket must be measured at any given instant in a non-accelerating frame of reference travelling at the same instantaneous speed as the rocket (see the FAQ article on accelerating clocks), because this is the acceleration that its occupants would physically feel—and we want them to accelerate at a comfortable rate that has the effect of mimicking their weight on Earth.”
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html
A comfortable rate does not mean much when your time is slowed down.
So try it with higher gees.
Let’s do the star trek of speeding to the Sun.
You can’t do this with hohmann transfers, but we going use Nuclear Orion, and we aren’t doing hohmanns.
Let’s start at Jupiter L-2. Not sure of it’s distance. Here:
https://tinyurl.com/yyyy5kvu
51,879,339 km from Jupiter L-2 to Jupiter.
So point the Orion spacecraft at Jupiter and you will also to pointing towards the sun. Accelerate at 1 gee for 1 day, and that is:
For 24 hours:
“86,400 times 9.8 m/s = 846,720 m/s or 846.72 km/sec
and distance traveled is: 36,578,304 km
Making you still 15,301,035 km from Jupiter.
Stop accelerating in terms of rocket power, but you are accelerating due to Jupiter and the sun’s gravity.
So aim craft so you will not enter any atmosphere- an atmosphere wcan vaporize you at this speed, and you don’t want to slow down
from any atmospheric drag.
So how long does it take you get past Jupiter?
15,301,035 / 847 km/sec is 18,064.97 seconds or about 5 hours.
So you gain velocity over the 5 hours, and you will lose velocity, climbing out of Jupiter’s gravity well, but if accelerate after passing point where gaining stops, you will lose less if leave Jupiter faster. But also another factor to consider is you have oberth effect:
https://tinyurl.com/oqnt3mf
“The gain in efficiency is explained by the Oberth effect, wherein the use of an engine at higher speeds generates greater mechanical energy than use at lower speeds. In practical terms, this means that the most energy-efficient method for a spacecraft to burn its engine is at the lowest possible orbital periapsis, when its orbital velocity (and so, its kinetic energy) is greatest.”
So want burn [or explode small nuclear bombs] during the time going the fastest as compared after leaving the gravity well.
Let’s see, diameter of Jupiter is:
Equatorial radius (1 bar level) (km) 71,492
make 90000, so diameter of 180,000 km
Time involved 180,000 / 850 km/sec is 211.7 seconds
So say 1200 seconds [20 min] of acceleration with rocket power, start when nearest edge of planet is perpendicular to you flight path, and want 5 gees- or round number 50 m/s/s.
This is not particular uncomfortable, because you can be on a couch for 20 mins.
So 1200 times 50 m/s/s is 60,000 m/s or added 60 km/sec.
So you have spent more time gaining velocity gravity and time losing velocity from Jupiter gravity. Plus the sun’s gravity is added. Not sure how much. But we added 50 to the 850 km/sec and going to toward the sun at +900 Km/sec.
At Jupiter sun’s escape velocity is 18.5 km/sec
At Earth distance it is 42.1 km/sec
42.1 – 18.5 = 23.6 km/sec
It seems by time you cross Earth orbital distance one should gain
23.6 km/sec
How long does it take to get to Earth distance from Jupiter distance?
Amateur hour: I love how you sometimes quote numbers to 8 significant digits and then suddenly resort to only 1 or 2.
Don’t you see how fantastical fair I am being- I giving someone a opportunity to provide more correct answers.
If you going to a star, is there better place to start than from Jupiter L-2 ?
Maybe Saturn L-2 is better.
Maybe Mercury is better.
Maybe, high Earth orbit is better.
Maybe I am wrong that you could go from Jupiter L-2 directly to the Sun.
What is known is heading directly towards the Sun, is a hard thing to do. Currently we have space probe doing this right now, it’s the Parker Solar Probe:
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
It went twice near the sun, and going for another pass, by using gravity assist will get closer to the Sun in coming year.
Not sure a star ship, should get as close the sun as the Parker Solar Probe is getting or will get to the sun.
But the way we do it, is by losing orbital velocity- from Earth can’t just fly towards the sun {or we can’t do it currently- if we had a nuclear Orion rocket, then one should be able to do it, but I thought that from Jupiter it would a better place.}
Now, I should mention I didn’t get to what consider “my point”.
I was wondering why keep your acceleration at comfortable 1 gee acceleration, if going to the stars. People can live under 2 gees and people can withstand 5 or more gees, particular if it’s a short time period. And when going near light speed, your time period is made shorter.
Another point is a robotic mission could withstand say 10 gees fairly easily and “forever”. And first mission to stars will probably be robotic.
But I should mention our first mission to star is not going to what anything soon- probably possible within say +50 years.
This is why Trump is placing racism games.
He is trying to distract his voter base from the rapid decline in the coal industry.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2019/01/16/why-theres-no-bringing-coal-back/
E-man, have you had time to find that “strong experimental evidence” for the GHE and AGW, yet?
entropic…”This is why Trump is placing racism games.
He is trying to distract his voter base from the rapid decline in the coal industry”.
I am a socialist and I support him 100% on his stance. There are illegal immigrants in the US who have arrived en masse. Some of them have committed egregious crimes, one of them repeatedly raping a woman confined to a wheelchair.
No one has any business illegally crossing a country’s borders. If we tried it from Canada, we’d be immediately arrested and deported. If we persisted we’d be in a US prison for a long time.
This is reverse discrimination.
The reasoning is obvious. We in Canada would not work for dirt wages and conditions. Some US entrepreneurs want illegal immigrants because they will work for very low wages with no protection. I regard such entrepreneurs as traitors to their country who are putting legitimate US citizen’s out of work.
Guess who is supporting illegal immigration…the Democrats, especially those from Third World countries?
Dr. Roy made some good points relating to living on the Moon.
Too bad that things have drifted “Off Topic” into issues that have been discussed many many times before.
Why are we not discussing where to find the most accessible water on the Moon?
gallopingcamel
1. “Too bad that things have drifted ‘Off Topic’ into issues that have been discussed many many times before.”
This is something you will have to live with on this blog. What you didn’t observe is that the discussion moves to a new point (a correct interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton’s wordings concerning Moon’s rotation about its axis).
This is more a discussion about what different people view as true or not.
2. “Why are we not discussing where to find the most accessible water on the Moon?”
If it was an intersting matter for the majority of the commenters, not only you and gbaikie would write about it., most people would.
As you can see, it isn’t at all the case.
To be fair, it’s considerably less “off topic” than all the other times it’s been brought up.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
I agree 100% with you.
Btw: soory for the ‘altar boy’ but you are yourself the origin of this somewhat derogatory term.
It has to do with your endless repetitions of the ridiculous ‘xxx, please stop trolling”.
If there are people trolling not even half a bit less than all those you so ‘impartially’ selected, then these are your ‘friends’ Huffman, Robertson and Flynn.
OK, apology accepted. I will not call you names or insult you if you do the same.
DREMT
I take the opportunity for a reply to a comment of yours
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-365142
in which you correctly start referring to Sir Isaac
[35] While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, …
but surprisingly omit
(1) … in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes…
AND above all
(2) … but those revolutions are to be reckoned uniform not from their return to the sun, but to some fixed star; for as the position of the planets to the sun is non-uniformly varied, the revolutions of those planets from sun are rendered non-uniform.
*
Similarly, you correctly cite him again
[36] In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most uniform in respect to the fixed stars, …
but one more time omit the text immediately succeeding
viz., in 27 d.7 h.43 m., that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that its diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit;
These omissions considerably weaken Sir Isaac’s perceptible intention to show the parallelity of
– the planets wrt the Sun
– the Moon vs. Earth.
*
And somewhat strange for me is that Sir Isaac’s following sentences in [36] still remain systematically ignored in the thread:
– (1) … upon this account the same face of the moon always turns towards the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moon’s orbit, nearly…
and
– (2) … and hence arises a deflection of the moon’s face from the earth, sometimes toward the east, and other times toward the west, according to the position of the focus toward which it is turned; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moon’s orbit, or to the difference between its mean and true motions; and this is the moon’s libration in longitude
*
I don’t understand. Like James in ‘Dinner for one’, I’ll do my very best suspect any bad intent here.
*
Last not least, I read somewhere that gbaikie had some idea explaining Moon’s libration in latitude.
Please read Sir Isaac again:
… but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude arising from the moon’s inclination on its axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth; for that axis retains the same position to the fixed stars, nearly, and hence the poles present themselves to our view by turns, as we may understand from the example of the motion of the earth, whose poles, by reason of the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic, are by turns illuminated by the sun.
Again this wonderful, amazing seek for a parallel.
*
Maybe this is a consequence of the transition from the geocentric model of the Universe, where all motions must be explained differently, to a heliocentric model, where more and more motions experience a uniform, synthetic explanation?
Somewhat roughly spoken: who needs gbaikie’s thoughts when there is a genius like Newton at hand?
*
DREMT, it is not my role to convince you: to get convinced must arise from within our own innermost. I just want you to be as honest as I try to be in this comment.
Oops!
“Ill do my very best not to suspect any bad intent here.”
Bindidon, how much time did you waste assembling this unorganized pile of out-of-context quotes, interrupted by your opinionated incomprehensible ramblings?
Ever heard of Occam’s razor?
You’ve got endless piles of such garbage. But the simple racehorse explains the physics quite well.
Nothing new.
Yes Bindidon, I did notice that in 35, Newton makes the point of referring to the local axes, that the planets rotate about, as “their proper axes”, but does not make that clear distinction when discussing the moon, in 36.
I noticed that he observed the moon’s “day” (“diurnal motion”) as being as long as the time it takes to complete an orbit about the Earth. No arguments there.
I noticed that he observed that the same face of the moon always turns towards the center of the orbit, as it would if it were rotating about a “centre point”, but not on its own axis.
And I noticed his observations about the librations of latitude, which I discussed here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-365193
Did you have a point?
DREMT
“Did you have a point?”
Oh yes, though in your eyes possibly irrelevant, but not in mine.
*
“I did notice that in 35, Newton makes the point of referring to the local axes, that the planets rotate about, as their proper axes, but does not make that clear distinction when discussing the moon, in 36.”
Sorry, but I allow me to insist:
“[35] in the meantime they make their several rotations about THEIR PROPER AXES
vs.
“[36] In like manner is the moon revolved about ITS axis”
What is, in your opinion, the difference between the two expressions?
Is, for you, ‘its axis’ something different than ‘its proper axis’ ?
In French as in German, the two are absolutely identical and interchangeable.
“son axe” and “son propre axe”, as well “seine Achse” and “seine eigene Achse” are identical, because ‘propre’ and ‘eigene’ are semantically already contained in ‘son’ resp. ‘seine’.
Is in the English language the term ‘proper’ here not redundant as in French or German?
No, I’d say “proper” in English would indicate a difference when using it, as opposed to not.
I was, personally, also noting the similarity in the expressions “While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres…” and “in like manner is the moon revolved about its axis”.
It’s the concept of “being revolved about” something that makes the connection in my mind that he is referring to an object being spun around a central point, or axis, rather than on its own axis.
But we can each find different ways of reading things. I don’t think over-analysis of somebody’s words, no matter how important he may be, is going to resolve this issue, personally, so I think it’s a bit of a waste of time.
If you don’t know this book yet, you will love it:
https://tinyurl.com/y559armb
It is a perfect fit to your opinion.
Oops! 2:08 AM… Time to shutdown.
Thanks. That might help some people understand.
@Bindidon,
Wow! I did not see that coming!
What interesting is, what going to the Moon will do in terms of benefiting people living on Earth.
The adventure would be important, and probably least of it, would the fun for Americans. Or the global involvement of the adventure is the most important.
I think most important would be to try to solve the problems we have on our actual planet.
Spending quadrillions of US$ for all this stuff – manifestly fascinating you – will have exactly one consequence: less money for the rest.
“Bindidon says:
July 17, 2019 at 3:22 PM
I think most important would be to try to solve the problems we have on our actual planet.”
What problems have been solved in last couple decades which are example of the type problems you want to try solve in the future?
I would imagine, granting 150 billion dollars to Iran, would not be an example, that you would give.
Perhaps, the global fund?
Or are thinking about something else?
One of the benefits of research is resulting technologies. War and Exploration have both presented demands on science to produce technologies from which we all benefit. Example is clock that allowed mariners to determine longitude.
The Apollo Space program resulted in research on multiple fronts. Lighter materials, micro computers, advanced medicine and monitoring … the list is long.
So spending quadrillions on space program is actually a wealth generator … unlike ‘solving’ problems we have on earth and will always have.
cam…”Why are we not discussing where to find the most accessible water on the Moon?”
In this day of scientific ego and arrogance, scientists are reluctant to say, “I don’t know”. No one knows if the Moon has water let alone where to find it.
Roy stated in his article that the Moon rotates every 28 days. We are disputing that. I realize this has carried on from previous posts but it’s really an example of the inability of alarmists to think clearly about physics.
I am excluding Roy from that debate. He is not an alarmist and this on-going debate has nothing to do with him. Roy has taken a stance on it, however, in this article, and I would like to hear his reasoning.
Those who support the observation that the Moon cannot possibly turn around a local axis have provided sound evidence to support their position. The alarmists have ridiculed the arguments rather than respond with sound physics. They do the same with their pseudo-scienfic arguments in support of AGW.
I have laid out a model using coins to defend my position. Not one alarmist has responded with a scientifically-based rebuttal, simply because they can’t.
It’s the same with climate science in general. If the AGW and GHE models cannot be supported by science, without bending the laws of thermodynamics and physics, neither deserves to be offered as a theory.
The Moon’s orbit is known with astonishing precision based on modern measurements so I don’t see why anyone would waste time arguing about something Isaac Newton wrote 350 years ago.
While we don’t know whether water ice exists in LARGE quantities on the Moon we do have plenty of evidence that it exists at both poles in shaded areas that receive little or no sunshine. This supports Dr. Roy’s idea that lunar colonies need to be at the lunar poles.
Here is a Wiki quote that relates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
The Moon has to spin on its axis folks or we wouldn’t continue seeing the same aspect. One of God’s hilarious jokes. He wanted us to see his face all the time I guess.
We only see one side of the Moon because it is NOT rotating on its axis. It’s the same motion as a racehorse. It’s not that hard to comprehend, unless people fear reality.
JD, for Christ Sakes Man! Can’t believe you can’t see that! Didn’t you ever do Tinker Toys or Legos as a kid?
Sorry Stephen, it’s not about your beliefs.
Learn some physics.
stephen…”The Moon has to spin on its axis folks or we wouldnt continue seeing the same aspect”.
You are confusing orbital mechanics with local rotation.
Presuming a circular orbit for the Moon, all particles on the Moon must revolve in concentric circles around the earth’s centre.
That’s obvious. If the near side is always facing us, it means every particle on the near side face is moving in a circle around the Earth’s centre. Furthermore, it means every particle behind the face must also be turning in concentric circles.
The Moon’s axis is on one of those concentric circles and every particle along a radial line from the Moon’s axis to the Earth is moving in concentric circles.
It is not possible for all particles on the Moon on a radial line, including the axis, to move in concentric circles around the Earth and rotate about the Moon’s axis at the same time.
GR,
If we were standing on the Sun watching the Moon orbit around the Earth then when it is between us and the Earth one side is facing us and when it is on the other side of the Earth the other side is facing us. In order for it to do this it has to rotate around a central axis. If it wasn’t rotating around a central axis but stationary then from the Sun the same side would be facing us all the time and on the Earth we’d see different aspects of the Moon every day.
Stephen, you are still not understanding orbital motion. Use the racehorse as a model. The horse APPEARS to be rotating on its axis, if viewed from outside the track. But, it is not really “rotating on its axis”, it is changing direction (orbiting).
Use the orange/string, if you’re still confused.
Poor JustDumb Huffman. A race horse “turns” in order to not run off the track. If the horse didn’t rotate on its own axis, the poor horse, like JD, would always be a loser.
Synonyms for turn: rotate, spin.
HGS, please stop trolling.
An orange attached to a string that rotates once on its own axis per 1 orbit will not cause the string to wind up around the orange. If the orange rotates less than 1 time per period of orbit, the string will wind around the orange. If the orange rotates greater than one time per period of orbit, the string will also wind around the orange. If the orange stops rotating on its own axis completely per 1 period of orbit (i.e. curvilinear translation}, the string will again wind around the orange.
Poor JD. Always behind the curve (pun intended)
Synonyms for loser: dud, failure, JD, flop, has-been, Dr Em T, disadvantaged, down-and-outer, Gordon.
#2
HGS, please stop trolling.
Stephen P Anderson
I’m glad to see that exceptionally we share a view. Rien n’est impossible!
Here is what one of the greatest scientists of the last 500 years, Sir Isaac Newton, wrote about Moon’s rotation about its axis:
Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Princples of Natural Philosophy and His System of The World
p. 579-580
https://tinyurl.com/yxktpqd8
Please read § [35] and § [36], and note the parallels between
– the planets wrt the Sun
vs.
– the Moon wrt Earth.
Amazing…
Don’t wonder about comments soon attached by one or more members of this blog’s HyperScience trio!
Stephen P Anderson
I’m glad to see that exceptionally we share a view. Rien n’est impossible!
Here is what one of the greatest scientists of the last 500 years, Sir Isaac Newton, wrote about Moon’s rotation about its axis:
Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Princples of Natural Philosophy and His System of The World
p. 579-580
https://tinyurl.com/yxktpqd8
Please read paragraphs [35] and [36], and note the parallels between
– the planets wrt the Sun
vs.
– the Moon wrt Earth.
Amazing…
Don’t wonder about comments soon attached by one or more members of this blog’s HyperScience trio!
And don’t forget to ‘learn some physics’.
Bindi,
That’s the difference between me and you. I didn’t need Sir Issac to figure it out.
Great!
Stephen P Anderson
As expected, Google Books picked page 580 off, but luckily I typed the text by hand in (you can’t copy and paste there).
*
[35] While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes: the sun in 26 days; Jupiter in 9h.56m.; Mars in 24 2/3h.; Venus in 23h.; and that in planes not much inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, and according to the orders of the signs, as astronomers determine from the spots of maculae that by turns present themselves to our sight in their bodies; and there is a like revolution of our earth performed in 24h.; and those motions are neither accelerated nor retarded by the actions of the centripetal forces, as appears by Cor. XXII, Prop. LXVI, Book I; and therefore of all others they are the most uniform and most fit for the measurement of time; but those revolutions are to be reckoned uniform not from their return to the sun, but to some fixed star; for as the position of the planets to the sun is non-uniformly varied, the revolutions of those planets from sun are rendered non-uniform.
[36] In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most uniform in restpect to the fixed stars, viz., in 27 d.7 h.43 m., that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that its diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit; upon this account the same face of the moon always turns towards the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moon’s orbit, nearly; and hence arises a deflection of the moon’s face from the earth, sometimes toward the east, and other times toward the west, according to the position of the focus toward which it is turned; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moon’s orbit, or to the difference between its mean and true motions; and this is the moon’s libration in longitude; but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude arising from the moon’s inclination on its axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth; for that axis retains the same position to the fixed stars, nearly, and hence the poles present themselves to our view by turns, as we may understand from the example of the motion of the earth, whose poles, by reason of the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic, are by turns illuminated by the sun.
In any case, if we could contact the dead and ask Newton to specifically state whether he agrees the moon rotates on its own axis, or not, I don’t think that the answer he would give = QED, as you apparently do.
We apparently have different ideas on what QED means.
It just seems like a bit of an excuse for a massive diversion from talking about the issue logically to appealing to authority. If you like authority, what’s wrong with Tesla?
‘ a massive diversion from talking about the issue logically to appealing to authority’
Hilarious. From the guy who endlessly quoted and re-quoted Nikola Tesla on the subject.
On planetary motion, Id go with Newton.
Scott R
Here are some replies to your charts and ideas.
“Chart #1 The UAH data is directly tied to the El Nino cycle. There is no other climate forcer more important than this.”
1. The Nino3+4 area (5N-5S, 170W-120W) ist not the best sentinel for ENSO events. You need to add at least the atmospheric pressure delta between Darwin and Tahiti to have it complete:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
2. Nice to show us Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991 with a little peak in UAH’s record, but imho it would be more appropriate to show UAH’s subsequent even deeper and much longer drop, as big eruptions cause the lower stratosphere to warm and the lower troposphere to cool:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_ecu50TZYPYfr57XIWZ_rcu9p2trm2hy/view
And then you would see that El Chichon’s eruption, though weaker than Pinatubo’s, nevertheless managed to eliminate in UAH LT nearly all traces of the most powerful El Nino of the last 150 years, the 1982/83 edition.
*
“Chart #2 170 years of Global ocean data (HADSST3) shows us that despite having a 100 year uptrend, it is quite possible that there is a pivot at 0 deg on this chart”
Nothing is impossible, indeed.
Did you ever produce a graph showing a percentile-based comparison of TSI (or SSN) with
– ocean heat contents
– ocean surface temperature
– land surface temperature?
*
“Chart #3 For some reason, Antarctica hasnt warmed at all. Both the UAH data, and the HADSST3 southern ocean data show no long term trend”
Why should Antarctica warm? To take it as a scale is the same mistake as if you had chosen the Arctic, for the inverse reason.
“The one place we have no heat islands has 0 man made global warming.”
The one place? How do you know that? Do you know all 35575 GHCN daily stations having ever dealt with temperature since measurement begin?
But sorry, Scott: you average chart is as wrong as possible.
You show 2 charts with the same window height, but with anomalies having completely different ranges. Only an experienced observer sees that despite looking like a terrible decline, the average’s linear trend indicated in the chart is nearly equal to that of the original data (about -0.09 C / decade).
Correct would be either this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QYHHhwzscRu3eNl4X5BjsllpEpUXgDXS/view
or this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtnZJ2kh3i6QQmkXZfk2IiWMEyg5sg0f/view
*
“Chart #5 With it being known El nino has an 11 year period, 3.6 year harmonic, and a 2.2 year harmonic, it is clear that 2016 was the down beat. Weve had our 2.2 year harmonic, and now the 3.6 year harmonic is close to ending. La Nina conditions are already present in region 1, 2. Course we will have to wait for the official 3 month average for region 3.4. Here is my prediction for the next 4 years.”
My answer to your, with all respect, ‘coolista alarmism’ you know already:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZNxySq1EfCOl4t9-l4MIpoFdAQZEQ0OG/view
None of us has the tiniest idea of how it will look like in 12 months.
Look at an splendid gain prize in behalf of you. drroyspencer.com
http://bit.ly/2NJw1i1
Dr Spencer, please stop trolling.
Did someone hack our esteemed host?
stupid…”Gordon squeals: So, if you were standing on the side facing the Earth, and throughout the orbit you are always facing the Earth, how would you complete your 360 degree rotation about the Moons axis?!
You stand still…”
There’s a good reason for calling you stupid.
If I am standing on the near side of the Moon facing the Earth, the entire Moon is turning in concentric circles with me.
That includes the axis!!!
Doh!!!
The axis is turning in a larger circle than me. How the heck do I rotate around the axis when it is moving in a parallel circle to mine?
Your reply has to rank with the most stupid ever presented on this blog.
Gordon,
You MORON. The moon is rotating on its own axis, therefore you stand still you complete and utter dumbass, because you are rotating along with it.
You are the IDIOT that can’t even figure out what curvilinear translation is. So its expected you ask brainless questions that prove your incompetence.
It’s just you 4 blithering idiots against the rest of science. It shows you never took an engineering course in your life. You just LIE.
Ever stopped to question why this makes you so angry?
Yawn.
Ever take a course in kinematics? That would be a no.
Yawn.
Ever understood why kinematic descriptions won’t resolve the issue despite having it explained to you in great detail dozens of times? That would be a no.
Why would I listen to someone with a IQ of 50 try to explain a principle of physics to me? I would just pat their head, and say “that’s a nice boy”.
That’s a nice boy.
I’m sorry for your argument loss.
scott r…”I believe that during these La Nina cycles of the last 40 years, the cold Antarctic waters were building up, not being fully released”.
Your point about ENSO cycles is interesting.
With regard to Antarctica, it is ice built upon a solid land mass. In the Arctic, the ice is built on an ocean with two major ocean currents, the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift. In both summer and winter, the ocean currents and strong winds tend to move the ice into the North Atlantic, reducing the ice mass.
Since Antarctica is covered in deep ice all year round, I would think that should explain why it has not warmed.
Having said that, the significant warming in the Arctic is limited to locales that move around month to month. That could be related to warm water and air being moved around by the North Atlantic currents and winds.
“Since Antarctica is covered in deep ice all year round, I would think that should explain why it has not warmed.”
Huh?
Your reply has to rank with the most stupid ever presented on this blog.
DM,
You wrote –
“Huh?”
Do you intend to follow it up with such gems as “Duh!”, “Wow, just wow”, or “Not even wrong!”?
You go on to utter the following inanity –
“Your reply has to rank with the most stupid ever presented on this blog.”
Such as the one you just provided, I presume.
I understand, if you are just trying to emulate GR. Maybe you could add some reasoning to dispute whatever it is you disagree with.
If you are attempting to be patronising and dismissive, you might need a bit more practice. Why should anybody pay particular notice to your fact-free opinions? Appealing to your own authority is hardly likely to convince many of your supposed expertise.
Cheers.
Since Antarctica is covered in deep ice all year round, I would think that should explain why it has not warmed.
Let’s unwrap your stupidity.
Ice is cold, therefore it cannot be warmed !
So, I guess, the Sahara is hot, therefore it cannot be cooled !
The student/denialist is stupid, therefore he cannot learn. (maybe this statement is true)
DM,
You wrote –
“Ice is cold, therefore it cannot be warmed !”
What a silly thing to say! As you say, ice is cold. Covering something with ice keeps it cold. Try heating the ice until it is not cold, and it ceases to be ice.
I trust you are not one of those foolish GHE true believers who claims that you can use the IR radiation from ice to heat water?
You go on to say –
“So, I guess, the Sahara is hot, therefore it cannot be cooled !”
You guess incorrectly. Why you make such a stupid guess is beyond me.
Keep guessing if it keeps you happy. The future will tell whether your guesses were any good, but so far you are not doing too well at guessing the past, are you? Just like foolish “climate modellers” – cannot even successfully model the past!
Cheers.
mickey…”Ice is cold, therefore it cannot be warmed !”
D-u-u-uhhh!!!
There is very little heat input to warm it. It’s even colder in the Antarctic than in the Arctic and both have little solar input through most of the year.
Polar expert, Duncan Wingham, when asked if glaciers were melting on the mainland stated it is far too cold for glaciers to melt in Antarctica. He’s an AGW supporter.
The Arctic is a different situation. It is subject to warmer water from both the north Atlantic and Pacific. Wind and oceans current can drive ice out of the Arctic and during the brief Arctic summer, ice breaks up and flows out of the Arctic. As it loses ice it warms.
Ask Newfoundlanders about the icebergs in spring.
The Antarctic has ice piled to a mean level of 2 km across the continent. The maximum thickness is 4.7 km. That’s a lot of ice and a lot of cold temperatures.
The Antarctic loses hardly any ice in the brief summer. Ice is cold and it keeps the place cold. And CO2 has no effect whatsoever.
Let me repeat your statement:
“Since Antarctica is covered in deep ice all year round, I would think that should explain why it has not warmed.” !!
If anything, I would say that it is too cold in Antartica for any warming to cause significant melting. Only a fool would contend that the presence of ice somehow prevents warming!
In any case, you are dead wrong again since:
“The western side of the Antarctic Peninsula has been experiencing some of the fastest warming winters on the planet since observations began in the 1950s.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/11/antarctic-peninsula-western-map-warming-glaciers-penguins-krill/
mickey…”If anything, I would say that it is too cold in Antartica for any warming to cause significant melting. Only a fool would contend that the presence of ice somehow prevents warming!”
You’re not that obtuse are you Mickey? If there is insufficient heat from the Sun to warm an area covered in an average of 2 km of ice then definitely, the ice prevents warming.
The ice sets the temperature in Antarctica…obviously.
As far as part 2 of your reply, you are referring to an area on the Antarctic peninsula that is closer to the tip of South America than the centre of the mainland. The area is a thin piece of land in the middle of a vast ocean where ocean currents can set the temperature.
That’s not the same as being surrounded by ice to a depth of 2 km.
One thing we know for sure, it’s not a trace gas warming the Peninsula.
scott r… re Myki…”Why not provide constructive criticism? Pick one item you disagree with and explain yourself”.
Because Myki, aka Mickey, as in Mickey Mouse, is not a real Doctor. Mickey is an alarmist troll who has nothing to contribute but smart-assed comments and ad homs.
“Mickey is an alarmist troll who has nothing to contribute but smart-assed comments and ad homs.”
Flattery will get you nowhere.
Gordon Robertson in regards to Dr Mickey Mouse lol.
I hope everyone here realizes that it is important to keep an open mind to opinions that differ from yourself. If you do not do that, you are passing on opportunities to learn and grow, and we become just as bad as the blog trolls. By taking in the data that might disagree with your opinion and giving it the study it deserves, you either come out of it with a stronger foundation for your opinion, or, a modified opinion. There is no downside. That is what SHOULD separate a science based blog from political blogs although follow Neil Degrasse Tyson and you will find yourself outnumbered 10:1 by AGW alarmists that use no other technic other than site the lame 97% of scientists agree crap. Anyways, I’m not doing this for the satisfaction of being right, or for political reasons. I’m genuinely concerned about the GSM and understanding the climate is critical for all of us.
“I hope everyone here realizes that it is important to keep an open mind to opinions that differ from yourself.”
“…AGW alarmists that use no other technic other than site the lame 97% of scientists agree crap.”
Is that what you call keeping an open mind?
A bit hypocritical perhaps?
Ian, please stop trolling.
Dr Ian Myki if you dont mind.
My background is Welsh/Japanese.
scott r…”I hope everyone here realizes that it is important to keep an open mind to opinions that differ from yourself”.
Agreed.
Since Mickey showed up, all he/she has done is take shots at skeptics via ad homs and sarcasm. Mickey offers little in the way of discussion.
eben…”Is called angular momentum either you have some or you have none, its just basic fizzix,
If you claim moon has no angular momentum you are scientifically retarded”.
The Moon has no angular momentum it has only linear momentum. The Moon want’s to move in a straight line with linear momentum and it is drawn incrementally into an orbit by the Earth’s gravitational field.
Angular momentum applies to a body rotating about an axis, like the Earth. A person standing on the Earth at a certain latitude has angular momentum.
If you are standing on the Moon facing the Earth, you would have no angular momentum, otherwise you’d gradually turn away from the Earth and end up on the dark side of the Moon.
btw…the reason it is called ‘angular’ momentum is its relation to the change of an angle experienced by a mass as it rotates about an axis.
Linear momentum is expressed as the mass of a body times its velocity. Angular momentum is the mass of a body times its angular velocity. Angular velocity is the angular change wrt time of a radial line connecting a mass to an axis.
There is no angular velocity of a radial line from the Moon’s axis to a point on it’s face. With a radial line from the Moon’s axis to a point on the near face, both the axis and the point on the face are moving in Earth orbit in concentric circles at the same angular velocity wrt to a radial line from the Earth’s centre.
There is no way a point on the near face can rotate about the Moon’s axis.
Gordon, it’s also possible to speak of the Moon’s angular momentum “relative” to its orbit. That is L = mrv = mωr^2.
But, your “linear” momentum is actually a better description. If gravity were suddenly turned off, the Moon would travel in a straight line with the same momentum = mv.
JD…”Gordon, it’s also possible to speak of the Moon’s angular momentum “relative” to its orbit. That is L = mrv = mωr^2″.
Yeah, I can see that. Good point. The reality is that the Moon is in orbit and you could look at its orbital rotation about the Earth, as if it’s on a rope, as angular momentum.
part 2…
Certainly, if you swing a bucket of water around your head on a rope, the bucket has angular momentum but no local angular momentum. If it did, the water would run out.
The water r.e.m.ains in the bucket because the water has linear momentum and wants to travel in a straight line. The bottom and sides of the bucket pull it into orbit via the rope.
We both know there is no local angular momentum on the Moon about its axis.
Exactly, Gordon.
Angular momentum confuses many. But your in-depth understanding of the relevant physics puts you far ahead of the typist-clowns that attempt to insult you.
Nothing new…☺
JD…”your in-depth understanding of the relevant physics puts you far ahead of the typist-clowns that attempt to insult you”.
My understanding of physics merely scratches the surface. I consider myself fortunate to have gone through the amount of physics and math thrown at us in first year engineering.
It amazes me that the alarmists cannot even rebut such a superficial understanding. Makes me wonder what AGW is actually based upon.
Gordon ! I think you may be right for once! Well done.
Think of an olympic hammer thrower. While he is rotating on the plate the hammer always faces him/her but appears to rotate according to the audience watching. As soon as he/she lets go, the hammer travels in a straight line and does not rotate. Just like the Earth and moon. Suddenly remove the Earth and the moon would behave like the hammer.
Problem solved. Now let’s move on children.
nurse…”Think of an olympic hammer thrower. While he is rotating on the plate the hammer always faces him/her but appears to rotate according to the audience watching. As soon as he/she lets go, the hammer travels in a straight line and does not rotate”
I posted a video a while back showing what you’re talking about. As the handle and chain leave the throwers hands, you can see the ball going straight. However, as he releases it, the chain and handle are pointing slightly toward him and the ball drags the chain and handle forward. As the ball moves forward, the chain swings in behind the ball but its momentum carries it slightly past the ball’s path. As it does, the chain turns the ball slightly.
If it was possible to release the chain from the ball just after release, the ball would run straight without rotating.
binny…”Because Newton did no calculation but sythesised the ideas of many others. The calculations were made later”.
Now you are becoming a blithering idiot. Newton developed calculus based on the geometry of Descartes. He did all his own math, being so good at math that he was eventually put in charge of the Royal Mint.
Your angle is likely that Leibniz had a hand in the development of calculus as well, offering the differential ‘d’ in d/dt. It was actually Newton who developed calculus but the powers that be in the world of political-correctness are working overtime trying to discredit the real inventors of scientific principles and associating them with wannabees.
Newton ‘revealed’ his calculus in 1665 when Leibniz was about 10 years old. He’s concealed it for some time. It has been claimed that Leibniz stole the ideas of Newton which has a likelihood since Newton predates Lebniz significantly.
It was Newton who explained Kepler’s orbital math by gravitational force. Kepler was essentially a mathematician who relied on the data of astronomer Tycho Brae. He managed to compile the raw data into sensible data using mathematical relationships. He was no physicist.
Newton was in another class altogether, as a mathematician and physicist.
Robertson
“Now you are becoming a blithering idiot.”
As usual: you insult people because you are too superficial and busy with your own thoughts to correctly understand what other people write.
The sentence you referred to you reproduce out of the context of a long series of comments, Robertson. You very probably din’t read even one of them.
What I wrote with ‘Newton did no calculation’ was OF COURSE restricted to the equation of the Moon’s center.
I agree: if I had written ‘no calculation in this context’, I would have avoided the problem anyway.
*
Sir Isaac did greatest work in numerous directions during decades, but it is definitely known that he no longer wanted, in his late phase, to attack the problem of the equation of Moon’s center.
This was indeed done by Lagrange and Laplace, wether you like it or not.
Laplace furthermore was the guy who continued Sir Isaac’s great work on tide calculations.
According to Sir Isaac’s calculations, tides would not have exceeded one meter anywhere on Earth.
But Laplace’s dynamic tide equations gave tide maxima up to 15 meters, what nicely corresponds to actually observed values.
You are such a boring, ignorant boaster, Robertson!
Jesus.
binny…”What I wrote with Newton did no calculation was OF COURSE restricted to the equation of the Moons center.”
You did not state that, did you? You made it appear as if Newton was a dummy who thought up ideas and had others figure it out.
DREMT…”Exactly as I explained in this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791
From the inertial reference frame (fixed stars) you can state that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, but not on its own axis. If it was simultaneously rotating about both, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth”.
Sorry, I missed your reply. I agree with what you are saying and I have no idea why the spinners don’t understand.
I have pushed the definition of curvilinear motion in a circle although it is better to view the Moon as a body rotating about the Earth’s barycentre attached to a rigid member. It’s important to get it that the Moon is not free to turn on it’s own axis due to the Earth’s gravitational field holding the same lunar face toward it.
Some physicists would frown on my use of extending curvilinear motion to cover a circle but I am only apply the definition as stated. I learned in engineering studies to view angular motion via tangential lines to a curve. Doing so allows curvilinear translation to be viewed as simply rectilinear translation in a curve as a series of tangential lines.
The Moon’s orbit is essentially that, since the Moon’s momentum is linear. It’s gravitational force that forces the Moon into an elliptical orbit. Since the near face is tidally-locked to Earth’s gravity, the latter hold the Moon in a curvilinear path with all particles moving in concentric circles with the same angular velocity wrt to a radial line from Earth’s centre to the Moon’s axis.
AFAIAC, the Moon’s orbit might as well be described as rectilinear translation with a complication. Let’s face it, orbital motion is unique. The orbiting body is not powered by a force as one might expect in rectilinear translation.
It’s also amusing how the human brain wants to see what is not there. If you look at the gif with the Moon orbiting the Earth, with the same face always in, the mind wants to see the Moon rotating about it’s axis. A closer view, once it is known all particles on the Moon are moving in concentric circles, allows the mind to see that the Moon is orbiting while not rotating.
Gordon, it is time for bed.
Stop staring at the moon, it will still be there tomorrow.
Begone, troll!
nurse crotchrot…”Stop staring at the moon, it will still be there tomorrow”.
Actually, I am staring at Jupiter in the southern sky. That big sucker is far more interesting than the Moon.
You can stay up a bit longer. But just this once, mind you.
Begone, troll!
“I agree with what you are saying and I have no idea why the spinners don’t understand.”
Once people understand that from the inertial reference frame, you can still describe the moon’s motion as not involving rotation on its own axis, that ought to be the end of the argument for most people; since most newcomers to this argument and even some of the old hangers on (like Bart, or barry, for instance) will argue that from the inertial reference frame the moon is rotating on its own axis, and from a non-inertial reference frame it’s not. With that false understanding corrected, they ought to be forced to move on, but instead they just come back to it again and again.
I think it’s why it’s one of the very first points Tesla made in his first paper on the moon’s rotation.
The Moon/rotation issue offers a perfect example of how some people cannot leave their false religion. The issue of AGW/GHE involves complicated physics. But, the Moon/rotation issue has easily understood examples, such as a racehorse, merry-go-round, Ferris wheel, orange on a string, etc. Regardless of such clear examples, they choose to reject reality.
Nothing new.
Yawn.
Science is boring to children.
But, at least you still have your obsession with me to keep you awake.
dremt….”will argue that from the inertial reference frame the moon is rotating on its own axis, and from a non-inertial reference frame its not”.
What it comes down to is no matter the reference frame you must still apply the basics. If a body is not turning about its axis, it’s not turning in any reference frame. It has no local angular velocity or momentum, therefore it cannot turn locally, no matter the reference frame.
I have no issue with the claim that the Moon APPEARS to be turning around its axis from a different reference frame but closer examination, and application of the basics, shows it is not.
There is no evidence that the Moon is turning about its axis and the first clue should be that the same face is always toward the Earth. That threw me for a bit of a loop at first because I was taught that the Moon does exactly one rotation about its axis per Earth orbit.
That’s when I began to notice the parallels between orbital motion and the definition of curvilinear translation. Then it made sense.
When I tried to do it, using two coins, it immediately became apparent that local rotation was impossible with one lunar face tidally-locked to the Earth.
Gordon squeals:
“Thats when I began to notice the parallels between orbital motion and the definition of curvilinear translation. Then it made sense!”
How can it make sense when you don’t even have the correct definition of curvilinear translation??
It doesn’t matter that you don’t like Gordon’s definition of curvilinear translation. Because from the inertial reference frame, you can argue that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
And since you can do that, all arguments about reference frames, and definitions of curvilinear translation, etc, are rendered moot. Your entire method of attacking us, on this discussion, is rendered moot. Understand? You don’t have an argument left. So you can go on about people squealing, or shrieking, or blubbering, as much as you like. Be as angry as you want.
You don’t have an argument left.
”Because from the inertial reference frame, you can argue that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.”
No. That’s wrong by simple observation since the moon surface experiences night and day; the belt of Orion is not fixed in place as observed from the moon surface (just like on Earth).
Thus the moon is not tidally locked to the fixed stars (the sun is a star) so the moon is rotating on its own axis turning day into night as the sun also rises and sets on the moon. Proof is watching the moon terminator sweep across the surface in your backyard telescope as the moon rotates on its own axis. The moon IS tidally locked to the Earth presenting only one face give or take a little libration.
And once you come to understand that, all arguments about reference frames, and definitions of curvilinear translation, etc. are rendered moot. Your entire method of debating, on this discussion, is rendered moot. Understand? You don’t have an argument left. So, you can go on about people squealing, or shrieking, or blubbering, or trolling, as much as you like. Be as angry as you want.
The belt is not fixed. You don’t have a defensible argument.
From the inertial reference frame, you can argue that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
That’s a fact. Not my fault if you don’t understand.
The belt is not fixed. No matter the barycenter.
No-one’s saying it should be.
Poor Dr Em T.
Definitions in physics mean things. They are important. You don’t get to change them around to suit your ignornce, clown.
You are so stupid, you cannot even understand your error.
I’m not changing the definition of curvilinear translation. You can endlessly argue with Gordon about that if you wish, but I have fully understood your definition of curvilinear translation from the very first time you wrote/linked to it. Let alone the hundredth time.
The point is, you can describe the motion of the moon, from the inertial reference frame, as a rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter, but not on its own axis.
Since you can describe it that way, “reference frames” and arguing whether the moon’s motion is better described as “curvilinear translation plus a rotation on its own axis” or simply “a rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter, but not on its own axis” cannot resolve the issue.
So, you have to get into the forces involved in “orbital motion”, e.g:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
The written record of evidence goes against DREMT, all of the 3 ring circus entertainers say the belt is fixed:
1) There is no evidence that the Moon is turning about its axis
2) the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
3) We only see one side of the Moon because it is NOT rotating on its axis.
The belt is not fixed.
Nobody is arguing that the belt is fixed.
We are not arguing that the Earth doesn’t revolve around the sun.
“Nobody is arguing that the belt is fixed.”
These three nobody (DREMT term) comment entertainers are arguing the belt is fixed:
1) There is no evidence that the Moon is turning about its axis
2) the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
3) We only see one side of the Moon because it is NOT rotating on its axis.
The belt is not fixed. These entertainers don’t have a defensible argument.
We are not arguing that the Earth doesn’t revolve around the sun.
Thus, we are not arguing that the Earth-moon barycenter doesn’t revolve around the sun.
The nobody (DREM Team term) entertainers are not arguing that the Earth doesn’t revolve around the sun is correct, the issue is the 3 “nobody” entertainers are all arguing the belt is fixed.
The belt is not fixed; these entertainers in regard to the actual issue don’t have a defensible argument.
The belt is not fixed because the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis, and the Earth-moon barycenter is revolving around the sun.
If you don’t understand that, it’s not my problem.
Dr. Clown
Repetition of the same stupid thing over and over does not make it true. It just makes you repetitiously more stupid.
The whole world of science is wrong and you clowns are right.
That’s a nice boy.
Gordon,
You can come out now and admit you are wrong. There is no shame in that. Er….well, there actually is, but who’s counting. I am.
“The belt is not fixed because the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis”
Now at least DREMT comes around to understand the moon is rotating thus has to have an internal axis of rotation. Actually, the moon has at least two axes, an internal axis of rotation and an external orbital axis. The moon is rotating about its own axis because the belt is not fixed & the moon is also orbiting about the Earth-moon barycenter & the sun & the galactic center on even more external axes.
If the belt were fixed (with some very, very small belt parallax opposing ends of the orbit(s)), then there would be only these several orbital external axes & no internal rotational axis.
Any competent astrophysicist would understand this and I have read commenters write that even Joe Postma threw these 3 “nobodies” under the bus explaining they are incorrect writing:
1)There is no evidence that the Moon is turning about its axis
2)the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
3)We only see one side of the Moon because it is NOT rotating on its axis.
The belt is not fixed. These entertainers don’t have a defensible argument.
Whenever fluffball gets overwhelmed by facts and logic, he seeks cover behind fake experiments, or “authorities”.
Nothing new.
But, it’s funny to now see him using Postma as his “authority”. That is apparently also the “authority” the child, “Stupid”, uses. And clown Norman absolutely despises Postma, but believes fluffball is “intelligent”!
The clowns sure get twisted up in their pseudoscience.
Definitely NOT using Joe Postma (blog former screen name) as an authority only as claimed around here: “Joe advertises himself as an astrophysicist who works at the University of Calgary”.
Reader’s write Joe understands the moon rotates on its own axis as reportedly evidenced when Joe threw JD under the bus on another blog for disagreeing (with a link to the action).
Evidently, it’s entertainer JD thinks Joe is an “authority” on the subject, so I realize that hurts JD. Nothing new. JD does need to learn some physics.
Ball4 still doesn’t understand. Oh well, I can live with that.
Now fluffball types out 3 paragraphs of fluff to deny his own fluff, even flattering me with more imitation.
The comedy continues.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The belt is not fixed because the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis
It would be quite improbable for an astronomical body to have an spin angular momentum of exactly zero.
Stand on the lunar service and you will see the entire universe sweep across your field of vision. That means the Moon is rotating.
…but not on its own axis.
Dr Em T displays his breathtaking ignorance for all to see.
That’s a nice boy, now run along.
I’m sorry for your argument loss.
Gordon blubbers:
“Doing so allows curvilinear translation to be viewed as simply rectilinear translation in a curve as a series of tangential lines!”
WRONG. For the hundredth time WRONG! You were drunk, stoned, or asleep (probably all three), during your alleged kinematics lecture. With curvilinear translation, the lines cannot rotate at all. Your dumb tangential lines rotate. They are constantly changing direction.
The real definition:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.”
Please look at the sample of curvilinear translation on page 4 of the following link:
[https://www.asu.edu/courses/kin335tt/Lectures/Kinematics/Kinematics%20I%20Spring%202005.pdf]
Are the arrows tangent to the curve?? NO, Einstein!
Gordon squeals:
“the latter hold the Moon in a curvilinear path with all particles moving in concentric circles with the same angular velocity wrt to a radial line from Earths centre to the Moons axis.”
Listen Einstein. The motion you describe above cannot be curvilinear tranlation, since with curvilinear translation, all particles move in congruent curves per the correct definition. You DO know the difference between congruent and concentric??
This is why you are so confused with the moon’s rotation. You can’t get anything right.
…and, also for the hundredth time:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791
Physics is all about being precise, clown. It’s why you are confused as well.
I’m sorry for your argument loss.
Is your name Gordon?
That would be a no. You are the other clown.
#2
I’m sorry for your argument loss.
Child, what folks are trying to explain to you is that “orbiting” is a separate motion. It can be thought of as instantaneous translation, with changing direction. You have to have a proper education to understand.
Or, even without the proper education, a person that can think for himself would realize that a train traveling on a circular track is “instantaneously translating in a constantly changing direction”–called “orbiting”.
Grow up, and learn some physics.
A body can orbit and rotate, or orbit and not rotate.
The Moon is orbiting and rotating, as shown in the LHS of the animation. Otherwise it wouldn’t always present the same face to the Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Same as if the Earth’s rotation was slowed down to 1 day/year.
The RHS is the Moon orbiting and NOT rotating.
Just ask NASA, who had to actually land multiple spacecraft onto the lunar surface and then lift off again and get back to orbit.
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/
“A body can orbit and rotate, or orbit and not rotate.
The Moon is orbiting and rotating, as shown in the LHS of the animation. Otherwise it wouldn’t always present the same face to the Earth.”
A body can orbit and rotate, or orbit and not rotate.
The Moon is orbiting, not rotating on its own axis, as shown in the LHS of the animation. Otherwise it wouldn’t always present the same face to the Earth.
Just watching a horrible, faked, retroactive rendition of the Moon landing and I can see why some think the landing was faked. I followed the real landing on TV and it was nothing like these TV weenies are depicting it.
One of the highlights for me was Cronkite messing up. In this phoney TV production he looks composed and worldly. During the actual landing, he was choreographing what the astronauts ‘should’ do next, as if he was writing the script.
When Armstrong stepped off the lander he was preceded by Cronkite telling us exactly what he’d do next. Instead, Armstrong took of leaping and bounding across the Moon’s surface, having a hoot. Cronkite lost it, almost screaming, “that’s not what he is supposed to do”.
Cronkite was really po’d that Armstrong had not followed his script.
What you describe is exactly what we know happened. The whole exercise was massively faked!
Here we witness the negative result of the closing of lunatic asylums in the 80’s.
Even though the asylums are closed, if you believe your obsession with me will cause you to hurt yourself, you can turn yourself into the authorities.
There is help available. Don’t wait until it’s too late.
Postma says hello. He misses you.
Besides all your obsessions with personalities, now you are hearing voices?
Make sure your therapist knows all this.
We have quite a few lunatics housed here in the Denialist Dreamtime Retirement Home. DMT is welcome – he (I assume) will find many like-minded patients here.
Yeah…you’re a bit sort of “one note”. It’s just the same joke over and over again. And that’s coming from me, Mr “Please Stop Trolling”. That’s how you know it’s bad. Best quit while you’re behind.
DREMT – somebody who has 125 useless posts on this thread complaining about nurse Ratchet’s relatively few, but very witty, rejoinders is a joke in itself. I bet you think this (science fiction) site is actually about real science!
OK, Nurse R.
Thank you captain droll. I see a lot of this behaviour, particularly around the time of a full moon.
Definitely two separate commenters.
Scott R
Your comment
“Chart #3 For some reason, Antarctica hasnt warmed at all. Both the UAH data, and the HADSST3 southern ocean data show no long term trend
reminds me that it’s time in July to restart a compuation of all 9504 cell trends within UAH6.0’s 2.5° grid data.
Here is the top ten in the descending sort of the cell trend list
80.0N-82.5N 52.5W-50.0W 0.49
80.0N-82.5N 50.0W-47.5W 0.49
75.0S-77.5S 35.0E-37.5E 0.49
80.0N-82.5N 65.0E-67.5E 0.48
80.0N-82.5N 180.0W-177.5W 0.48
80.0N-82.5N 177.5W-175.0W 0.48
80.0N-82.5N 177.5E-180.0E 0.48
80.0N-82.5N 175.0W-172.5W 0.48
80.0N-82.5N 175.0E-177.5E 0.48
80.0N-82.5N 172.5W-170.0W 0.48
Note a cell near the South Pole at position 3.
https://tinyurl.com/y5tkgv7d
No surprise.
And here is the bottom ten:
75.0S-77.5S 130.0E-132.5E -0.19
70.0S-72.5S 110.0W-107.5W -0.19
77.5S-80.0S 152.5E-155.0E -0.20
72.5S-75.0S 62.5W-60.0W -0.21
72.5S-75.0S 157.5E-160.0E -0.21
70.0S-72.5S 70.0W-67.5W -0.21
70.0S-72.5S 67.5W-65.0W -0.21
70.0S-72.5S 65.0W-62.5W -0.21
72.5S-75.0S 160.0E-162.5E -0.23
72.5S-75.0S 165.0E-167.5E -0.25
72.5S-75.0S 162.5E-165.0E -0.26
As you can see, the highest trends in the Arctic are in absolute value way higher than the lowest trends in the Antarctic.
The top 100 at the North Pole shows as always a vast majority at 80N-82.5N (72), 25 are just below, and… 3 at the South Pole.
All bottom 100 cells are in the South.
The bottommost cell in the Northern Hemisphere is at position 9115 of 9504:
50.0N-52.5N 32.5W-30.0W -0.06
https://tinyurl.com/y5xncylr
No surprise.
All trends of course in °C / decade.
Business as usual! All is well!
And, évidemment, for the whole period, i.e. Dec 1978 – Jun 2019.
Bindidon,
I had a few more thoughts… you pointed out about the number of cells with a positive slope vs. negative. This does not take into account the 3-dimensional real life situation we have. While the majority of the planet warmed from 1980-2016, Antarctica cooled. We agree on that much.
You are stacking layer upon layer of snow and ice with an energy deficit there in Antarctica currently. So you can’t really go by number of cells, or the slope because regardless of the number of layers in Antarctica, you only get credit for 1 cell. Cells with glaciers are many times more important to the energy balance of the planet than the ones without… not only from an energy balance point of view, but an Albedo point of view as well. This is why Antarctica and to a lessor degree, Greenland are the most important places to study on the planet.
You can not ignore what is going on in Antarctica. If the earth was a freezer, Antarctica would be the compressor and the blower for the entire planet. Our cold air most definitely comes from there. The distribution method of the cold in my opinion is the El Nino current. It’s like someone stuffed a rag in front of the blower of a freezer and then blamed the freezer insulation on the door for the freezer warming up.
I can’t wait to dive into that cell by cell data honestly. I’m sure it is very interesting. Who knows, I may change / modify my idea after I review it.
The distribution method of the cold in my opinion is the El Nino current.
What is the “El Nino current?”
David, please stop trolling.
Bindidon thank you for taking the time and the thoughtful responses and for using actual science instead of referring me to peer reviewed studies. I was not even aware that trend data was available for individual cells was public. So proof right there, talk to people that disagree with you.
Comment 1: Firstly, back to chart #1. For me, I care mostly about El Nino region 3.4, because that region has a remarkable effect on our atmosphere. The amplitude between the highs and lows in the UAH data is tied remarkably to this region considering it’s small size globally. Looking at the El Nino 3.4 data alone does not explain the underlying trend, but it is important to know about the amplitude of change in the UAH is tied to this region. You can not really say we hit +0.86 deg C because you would be adding the effect of El Nino. It would be really interesting to see UAH readings from the 30s and 40s to see how they would compare to now. Instead, we have to use NOAA data as proxy which I will argue till I’m blue in the face is biased thanks to heat islands.
Comment 2: I put the Pinatubo eruption in there because that was the only case on the entire chart where temperature LED El Nino. In the case of El Chichon, El Nino still led temperature, which in my mind means El Nino was more important that El Chichon at the time. Doesn’t mean El Chichon has 0 impact. But I had to put Pinatubo on there to explain the change in lead.
Comment 3: I haven’t created a graph showing a % base comparison of TSI with ocean heat content, or ocean temps. I know where you are going with this. % wise, the change in TSI is very small. Why can such a small change in TSI can create such a large change in the ocean temperature right? The key here is to examine the 1878 – 1917, and 1942-1976 periods. During that time Co2 was in fact going up while ocean temperatures dropped for a significant amount of time. In fact, from 1878-1917, they dropped by 1 deg c completely naturally. A drop by that amount now would take us back to the -0.3 area. It seems like there are natural cycles here of different periods. (AMO / PDO, Gleissberg, Devries) Do you feel the IPCC has done the proper work separating the natural forcers / cycles in the ocean from man made or are they satisfied pining it all on us for maximum scare? As you know, ocean temperatures are everything. As the ocean goes, the land goes.
Chart #3 comment: If CO2 is insulating, why wouldn’t it insulate the south pole? It’s as simple as that. We are taking ice cores from Antarctica, building our models, so we absolutely need to study this more. I understand Antarctica is a unique place. My point on heat island is there are no major cities on Antarctica. You can’t say that about any other place.
For your complaint about my average chart… I realize the units are different. The point of that chart is not to talk about the absolute value of the southern ocean, the El Nino current, or the TSI. The point is to show that there is a relationship between the period of the cycles.
As for the individual cells, I think the flaw in your thinking is that all areas of the earth have an equal impact on global temperature trends. They do not. I’ve demonstrated in the very first chart how important 1 region (the 3.4 El Nino) is. IF I’m right, and the most critical region on the planet is influenced by the southern ocean, the entire global temperature can move with very small changes in that 3.4 current. Considering the southern ocean appears to have an inverse relationship to EL Nino and global temperatures, it is worth considering. Think about it… at the end of the mid-century cool down, the southern ocean was making a high. During the recent string of El Ninos, the southern ocean was making a 40 year low. That can’t be a coincidence.
If I’m right about how this system works… What happens if the amplitude of the solar cycle on the sun drops way down like it is predicted to do in the GSM? Do we get stuck in a permanent La Nina? Or do we get a permanent El Nino, and the cold from the GSM comes in another 30 years when solar activity finally increases? Anyways, SC 25 is super critical.
Bindidon,
Please post the link to the cell by cell UAH data. I would really like to look at it next time I have “down time”.
Much appreciate!
Scott R
“Please post the link to the cell by cell UAH data.”
No problem, here it is:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
and therein, the files
tltmonamg.1978_6.0
till
tltmonamg.2019_6.0
These files consist of 12 monthly 2.5 degree grids of 144 x 72 = 10368 cells.
But the 3 topmost latitude bands above 82.5 N resp. 3 bottommost latitude bands below 82.5 S don’t contain valuable data.
The grids begins at the southernmost / westernmost cell.
The file
tltmonacg_6.0
contains the 1981-2010 climatology, out of which you may reconstruct absolute data by adding the climatology cell value [x,y] to the corresponding anomaly cell .
Don’t forget to add the latitude weighting, it is not in the cells.
*
I’m preparing an answer to your Nino3+4 point.
Let me add that the format looks a bit strange, and reminds me the good old IBM card punchers/readers of the Golden Sixties.
Each cell is a five digit integer representing either centigrades or ‘undefined’.
Bindidon
Thank you! Wow… guess this won’t be a simple import into excel an create charts type of thing. lol What a mess. Oh well. Looks like I have some work to do. Too bad I’m not paid for this. I have extremely complex automotive seat wire harnesses to design! (You know, important things. People need to be massaged while they drive after all, without the seat catching fire.) lol
Have you drilled down to your own personal UAH cell and compared the data to the Noaa NOW data? Just wondering… more out of sense of curiosity than anything. I’ll probably check that. We have that summer / winter split at my location according to the NOAA data, with winters getting colder since 1998, and summers warmer, but according to UAH, there is no such divergence for the USA48. In fact the global UAH data shows the opposite with summers lagging winter. Of course I believe my eyes, and the base NOAA data. Our winters are getting colder… so as I dig into this, I expect the cell by cell data to reflect that hopefully, and show my location is a fluke for USA 48. If not, unfortunately, my confidence in UAH is shattered.
You know what would be wonderful? If Dr Spencer already produced a world map somewhere with each cell color coded to it’s 10 year trend, or current temperature departure for each month. Has such a map been created somewhere already for each one of these releases or am I dreaming?
Scott R
“…guess this won’t be a simple import into excel an create charts type of thing.”
Oh certainly it won’t. I use an own, heavily validated and verified preprocessor for lots of time series, among them UAH. It generates then various data: time series, trends, grids etc.
*
I didn’t for the nearest staion around me, but for example for tremendous Eastern Siberian corners like Verhoyansk. It was amazing to see that the entire absolute UAH plot was inside of the surface plot during the winters, because the surface was cooler than the LT.
Of greater interest than single corners are such wider comparisons:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15t-8wx4GQ7Aod3SuGp-VNVywePsErvdh/view
This was, using the GHCN V3 data set (inbetween outdated and replaced by V4) a comparison of
– the surface average of all Canadian stations active between 1979 and 2018
with
– the lower troposphere average of all UAH 2.5 degree cells encompassing the surface stations,
all based on the reference period 1981-2010.
Please do not bother about the commentator with the stinky, sweaty feet who will inevitably urge in telling you that these graphs are faked comparisons of the good UAH data with fudged NOAA data.
He would never be able to do the job.
Scott R
This
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
is the top directory of what you are looking for.
The most recent trend map (for 1979-2018) is
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/december2018/Trend_to_201812.PNG
Ooops!
Having a look at the Antarctic on this 2018 trend map, I suddenly remember to have wondered about which corner was there the one with the highest trend last year: it was not at all in the near of the Peninsula, as anybody would have imagined…
Bindidon,
Thanks for your continuous support. I made a request to Dr Spencer for support on this matter of summer / winter split, multiple timeframe trend analysis via this blog. Not sure if he will read it or help out. Hopefully they have a budget for that type of thing… or some students in need of a project. On the other hand, I’m struggling with my work / life balance right now, also trying to prepare my life and finances for the GSM and my anticipated economic collapse that will come with it, and need to avoid reinventing the data set wheel so to speak. Taking on the data myself is plan B if I have no other choice.
If CO2 is insulating, why wouldnt it insulate the south pole?
The south pole has warmed by 0.60 C since 1957.
Amundsen-Scott Station
data:
https://legacy.bas.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/Amundsen_Scott.All.temperature.txt
David Appell you are cherry picking one place on an entire continent. I’ll take the UAH data.
But just for a moment I’ll entertain it. Pretend we can use that data as proxy. I see the current / last reading is -61.8. The last time they had that reading for June was 2008. The bottom of the last solar cycle and you claim the sun has no effect. Can you guess what it was in June 1957 at the begining of the data set? -56.4. A full 5+ degree warmer than now. Hilarious.
scott R, you asked about the south pole, so I gave you the data for the south pole.
Appell
As usual, you publish simple-minded alarmist data, showing a tred containing a harsh drop around 1968 if I well remember.
Starting a bit later changes everything.
You are exactly the complement of Gordon Robertson: many comments, zero real knowledge.
Bindidon… David Appell doesn’t even know how to properly cherry pick… just dumping data on me for 1 weather station and declaring a trend for the entire continent. Here I’ll do it for your David…
But 2018 was the warmest year on record for this station!
My reply: And June 2019 is 10.1 degrees COLDER than last year!
Even for just this stations data…
Trends are irrelevant when you do not identify the natural cycles on various time frames properly. You place your start / stop point in a subjective place, and get a subjective trend. There is no value to that, except to the politicians and media. The folks at the IPCC coming up with the models that have all been wrong should also think about that.
Scott R says:
just dumping data on me for 1 weather station and declaring a trend for the entire continent.
You asked about the south pole.
The south pole is a point, not a continent.
Scott R says:
My reply: And June 2019 is 10.1 degrees COLDER than last year!
What’s the long-term trend, Scott?
Scott R says:
You place your start / stop point in a subjective place
Nope — the start/end points were the start/end points of the data record, not subjective.
It’s 62 years in any case, and it’s certainly statistically significant. About one complete PDO and AMO cycle.
scott R wrote:
The folks at the IPCC coming up with the models that have all been wrong should also think about that.
THe IPCC doesn’t do any science or make any models, Einstein.
Nor can you show the models are all wrong — it’s just a piece of crap statement lazy deniers try to pass off as something remotely coherent.
Four separate comments in a row just comes across as a bit desperate David.
David… now you are claiming I was talking about the South Pole. Read the entire comment. Clearly I’m talking about the continent and the ocean around it. You can not continuously assign the trend period to the entire data set. Do that and you ignore multiple time frames of natural cycles and you make predicting possible outcomes impossible.
I would wonder why we would build a base on the moon other than for the sheer bloody minded exercise of it all.
Too bad there is no compelling reason to go other than the engineering challenge. Even sterile Mars is a better option.
Probably the first human colony will be in the asteroid belt where mining would be an attraction.
The Trump admin wants to go to the Moon because, I think, they saw the Chinese land on the dark side and that scared them. They don’t want China or Russia claiming the Moon, or any part of it — they’d rather the US do that. That’s their impetus, I suspect.
David, please stop trolling.
Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue till he ran into an island off the coast of the Americas. A huge navigation blunder as he intended to sail to China.
Imagine some clown on the internet saying ‘It never happened. It was faked. America doesn’t exist. The world is flat and always has been.’
Anti science fakirs should pay back all the tax dollars spent to ‘educate’ them. At the least internet privilege should be revoked until they can prove how it works.
Ken I’m not sure there will ever be a direct, economically feasible reason to explore space. Definitely not at $10,000 / pound to get there. The cost is so high compared to the returns. On the other hand, the technology developed to go to space may have other applications that benefit humanity long term. Anyways, as a space enthusiast, I don’t care that space travel is not economically viable. We are a curious species, and answering questions humanity has about the universe has a value that you can’t put a dollar sign on. My opinion… and I’m not a socialist by the way. 100% for capitalism.
I too am an enthusiast about the space program and the spin off benefits.
Robots are doing a fine job of exploring Mars; we don’t actually need to go live in an inhospitable place to learn about it.
So the question remains; why do we need a colony on the Moon when supporting it for everything including water air food etc will bankrupt us
The research should be going to building interstellar craft. It should not be ‘shoot for the stars and get to the moon’.
–So the question remains; why do we need a colony on the Moon when supporting it for everything including water air food etc will bankrupt us–
We don’t currently, need a colony or lunar base on the Moon.
It wouldn’t bankrupt us, it could cost about same as ISS.
But ISS has been fairly pointless, and so would a lunar base.
One thing about lunar base is you could do a lot of things- which means it could cost a lot money.
The total cost of ISS is said to be about 150 billion dollars.
One thing about ISS, is it will not last forever. When it fails, you probably hear about ISS going beyond it’s design life- which would be an utterly meaningless thing to say, but they say it to make sound better. Talking it, at moment, would be bad career move- unless NASA wants to sell the idea of de-orbiting it.
So ISS will have low cost, because at some point, it’s going to fall out of the sky, or be de-orbited, or just become unfixable or have better things to spend money on.
A lunar base will last a long time- and doesn’t need to kept in orbit. That it could last forever, would make total cost be more.
ISS was put in the wrong place- 51 inclination- because we wanted to include the Russians. Russian lowest launch inclination is 51 degrees, NASA KSC is 28 degrees.
A problem with Lunar base, is it’s put in the wrong place.
Few idiots build a house without knowing something about land it’s on. NASA could be one the few idiots.
So, before one should build a lunar base, one should explore the moon to find a place to put the base. It’s genius stuff.
Next, should build a base, and mindless try mine un-mineable lunar water. Or should build a base then look for someplace which has the most mineable lunar water.
Say, it’s 50 miles away.
Then perhaps maybe look someplace closer which not as mineable, but it’s closer- being closer to the ill placed base, it would be more mineable than the place which is 50 miles away.
And then NASA mines lunar water for 10 years and finds out, that NASA could buy cheaper water than what spending mining water.
What does NASA do then? Admit they were idiots for mining lunar water, or continue mining lunar water.
It’s always the latter.
I would suggest that NASA not spend a lot of money and explore the lunar polar region to determine, if and where there is mineable lunar water.
Then let, other people decide whether the lunar water is mineable.
Or NASA would be done exploring the Moon, and NASA starts exploring Mars.
To explore Mars, NASA needs a base. So find place to put a base.
I would say it doesn’t have to be perfect place to put a base, and NASA should have longer term plans of putting another base somewhere where it’s a better place to put a base.
In the first base, NASA should not mine anything, other than perhaps the air of Mars. And first base should picked for reasons to do with safety of landing and leaving, and other things.
So the purpose of first base is to find resources relate to potential site which can be used for base II.
The design of Base II could improved by learning lessons from Base I.
Base I can be small base, and Base II could be a bigger base, but you could be making a base III in the future, because one continues to explore the vast region of Mars for better places for bases and/or future human settlements.
–The research should be going to building interstellar craft. It should not be shoot for the stars and get to the moon.–
You not going to launch an interstellar craft from the Earth surface. Though I am assuming interstellar craft that gets to a star within 100 years.
I think you build a big telescope to look at stars you want to go to. And 100 meter mirror telescope would much cheaper than a starship.
If the Moon has commercially mineable water, the moon is good location for optical and radio telescopes.
The Moon could make having telescopes on Earth surface seem like quaint old fashion idea. One could have hundreds or thousand of telescopes on the Moon. One could have a personal telescope be on moon and you can view from it, on Earth. Though 100 people could “time share” lunar telescope. Or you could rent one for a night.
If you rent a telescope on the Moon, are going own telescope on Earth? Yes, some could, and they could be fanatical about dark skies:
https://www.darksky.org/
[When there is a million satellites in the sky]
After a long discussion about the “plates” on this thread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/
I realized that their argument actually just boils down to this:
1) We agree that at 244 K…244 K…244 K, 400 W is leaving the system.
2) But you’re wrong, because it needs to be 244 K…290 K…244 K for 400 W to leave the system.
They don’t seem to realize how stupid their argument is.
They actually believe they are being smart by avoiding reality.
The comedy continues….
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
1) is for the plates together, but
2) is for the plates apart.
Try writing the two problems on separate sheets of paper, maybe that will help you keep them straight.
Humpty says
“Yes, you have proved that you have contradicted yourself, and that you are unable to correctly either follow (if not deliberate) or represent (if deliberate) my argument. Well done.”
What ever argument you are making is so full of holes it’s like swiss cheese with no cheese, all holes.
Care to restate your argument and tell me how you arrived at 244, 244, 244?
The Great Swamp Swami predicts you will not.
I’ll add proof by contradiction to the list of things you don’t understand.
“1) is for the plates together, but
2) is for the plates apart”
No. Both statements are for the plates separated. Unless you are saying that at 244 K…244 K…244 K, separated, the green plates somehow stop emitting 200 W each, to space, for some reason?
Nobody else on your team has been dumb enough to say that, but perhaps you can be the first?
“the green plates somehow stop emitting 200 W each, to space, for some reason?”
…and I’m saying, “stop emitting”. As in suddenly go from emitting 200 W, to emitting 0 W.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Yes, they stop emitting 200 watts to space, but not to zero, because they are now emitting 200 watts to each side for a total of 400 while only receiving 200 watts from the blue plate, so the green plates are receiving less than they are emitting, so they must cool, and since they cool they emit less.
bob still hasn’t learned you can’t increase enthalpy and decrease entropy without increasing energy.
Nothing new.
JD,
That’s just word salad, a bunch of words you don’t understand the meaning of.
HINT: entropy is not decreasing
Sorry bob, it’s you that doesn’t understand.
The blue plate going from 244K to 290K decreases entropy. That requires additional energy, unless you are into pseudoscience….
bobdroege
You are quite correct. Your only mistake it to continue replying to JDHuffman. This poster is really clueless about any physics at all. I think he is just here to cause trouble and be a smartass.
He does not understand rotation on axis at all. Not even a little. I quit trying to convince him when he demonstrated no ability to understand easy to grasp videos on the topic proving he was wrong.
You are correct also in the fact he does not understand the science words he uses. He throws them out to pretend to be informed. Like when he uses Poynting Vectors. He has no clue what this term means but he tries to confuse a few ignorants on this blog by looking up science terms and putting them in posts.
Anyway, on Entropy. Entropy increases when temperature goes up. The blue plate has an increase in Entropy when its temperature rises. It is good that he proclaims the incorrect view. Others can then see how phony and fake this poster is. It won’t change him at all. No amount of information will change his course of annoying people.
For you though:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Book%3A_Introductory_Chemistry_(CK-12)/20%3A_Entropy_and_Free_Energy/20.1%3A_Entropy
“Entropy increases as temperature increases. An increase in temperature means that the particles of the substance have greater kinetic energy. The faster moving particles have more disorder than particles that are moving more slowly at a lower temperature.”
You can keep wasting time with JDHuffman or realize he is just a troll. You will not have the slightest chance of changing his course or seeing an intelligent response from this one.
Proverb for you: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him (Proverbs 26:4).”
Norman, yes I know I am wasting time.
Another great typing fest from troll Norman, who never gets anything right.
And not to disappoint us this time, he found another link he can’t understand. His link is discussing entropy in chemical reactions, which is NOT what is occuring in the “plates”.
What a clown.
norman…from your link to entropy…
“Entropy is a measure of the degree of randomness or disorder of a system”.
Wrong…totally wrong. Entropy was defined by Clausius as the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat in a process at the temperature T at which the changes take place.
He stated it mathematically as…
dS = dQ/T
where in that definition or equation do you see a measure of randomness?
Clausius did add as an aside that in an irreversible process the randomness increases. Since most processes are irreversible, it means the universe is becoming more random.
That is not entropy!!! Entropy, like enthalpy, is a measure related to heat.
If you look at the equation dS = dQ/T, and you can keep T constant using a heat bath, then when you integrate, you can pull T outside the integral sign. SO, entropy becomes…
S = T.integral dQ
That tells you entropy is the total heat transferred over a process. Straight from Clausius, the scientist who defined entropy.
Basically, they claim that you need a temperature difference between the plates to “drive” energy through the system.
So, e.g. they claim that you need the temperatures to be 244 K…290 K…244 K in order for there to be the difference necessary for 400 W energy to be “driven” through the system, so that there is 400 W entering, 400 W leaving, and 400 W passing through.
But>/b> they already accept that at 244 K…244 K…244 K, 400 W is entering the system, and 400 W is leaving. So they must already accept then that 400 W is passing through the system, without needing to be “driven” by a temperature difference. Else how does the 400 W leave?
blob tries to wriggle out of it by claiming the 400 W output won’t last, since he claims the green plates will cool.
That doesn’t help him though, because if the green plates cooled after one second, say, such that only 399 W were leaving the system, there is still then 399 W passing through the system, with only a minuscule temperature difference to “drive” it. Which is what they are arguing cannot happen!
JDHuffman
I could waste my time proving you are completely wrong about entropy (which is true). Adding heat to an object increases its entropy. This is established science. You can look it up for yourself since you won’t accept my link on the topic. You are wrong.
Here one for you: Proverbs 26:11 “As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness.”
If rational thought can’t reach you maybe sound wisdom from Solomon might.
Norman’s missing yet another debunk of the “plates”.
If you require a 46 K temperature difference to “drive” 400 W through the system, how can a minuscule temperature difference drive 399 W?
Norman, the combination of your ignorance, with your self-righteousness, makes for great humor. What a funny clown!
The issue is NOT increasing entropy. The issue is decreasing entropy. You can NOT increase enthalpy, or decrease entropy, without adding new energy. The incorrect solution to the ”plates” violates 2LoT. You don’t know physics, so you can’t even understand simple examples.
You never get it right, so you’re usually hilariously wrong.
But, at least you can type….
“You can NOT increase enthalpy, or decrease entropy, without adding new energy.”
No. Apparently JD just needs to learn some freshman physics like enthalpies of formation and Maxwell-Boltzmann gas particle velocity distributions. It’s understandable that a 3 ring circus barker like JD would get physics so wrong – not needing these fundamental tools in JD’s profession of drawing entertainingly bogus cartoons.
Wrong again, fluffball.
The discussion is about the “plates”, not some irrelevant special cases.
But, if you had anything relevant it wouldn’t be “fluff”, would it?
“dS = dQ/T
where in that definition or equation do you see a measure of randomness?”
Nowhere as you’ve used field of thermodynamics symbols Gordon. Change the symbols to those used in the field of information tech.(no info. lost, always more disorganized), statistics (always increased randomness), or any other field where the the same eqn. arises – the Clauius concept of entropy turned out to apply in many if not all other tech. fields.
ball2…”Nowhere as you’ve used field of thermodynamics symbols Gordon. Change the symbols to those used in the field of information tech….”
Du-u-u-h-h-h!!!
If info tech want a word to describe their randomness then let them find their own word. I saw a philosophy weenie claim the definition of entropy by Clausius is wrong.
Clausius coined the definition of entropy just as he released the definition for the 2nd law. Entropy is his word, he made it up. The definition is his, he created the concept.
He meant entropy as a mathematical version of the 2nd law, which it is.
Entropy is the sum of heat transferred into or out of a system. Randomness has nothing to do with the transfer, it is merely an adjunct of heat transferred during an irreversible process.
Gordon, in info. tech. field it is info. being transferred in and out, no info. is lost to the universe and the information entropy always increases. In statistics, randomness never decreases except with intervention from outside, entropy is also applicable. Widen your horizons grasshopper. The same eqn. for entropy surfaces in these fields and many more.
That’s right, blob. They don’t just suddenly “stop emitting”.
The rest of what you are saying is how you then go on to delude yourself that the situation must be as in 2).
But the problem is, you already accept 1).
And even if you try to claim it’s just for a few seconds, you are still accepting that there is 400 joules per second entering the system, and 400 joules per second leaving, for those few seconds. At 244 K…244 K…244 K, separated.
And that can’t possibly be the case unless you have 400 W moving through the system, for those few seconds.
In which case, what you are claiming is impossible, without temperatures being at 244 K…290 K…244 K, you are already accepting happens at 244 K…244 K…244 K!
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
I have been saying all along that I don’t accept 1)
Once the plates are separated the amount of watts leaving the system goes down due to the insulating property of the gap between the plates. Immediately, not after a few seconds.
It only returns to 400 when the blue plate gets to 290.
I also never said they suddenly stop emitting
“Thats right, blob. They dont just suddenly stop emitting.”
I’ve said the green plates cool as they emit less, not that they stop emitting completely.
And by the way, thanks for consistently misrepresenting what I post.
I’m not misrepresenting anything, or anyone, blob.
I’m not saying that you have said the green plates stop emitting completely.
I am saying, that you would have to be claiming the green plates stop emitting completely, at 244 K…244 K…244 K. Otherwise, you are of course acknowledging:
1) That at 244 K…244 K…244 K, 400 W is leaving the system.
In which case, it is illogical for you to state that:
2) You’re wrong, it needs to be 244 K…290 K…244 K for 400 W to leave the system.
You can’t wriggle out of it, blob. What you say can only happen if temperatures are at 244 K…290 K…244 K, is happening at 244 K…244 K…244 K.
400 W is moving through the system. Else how is there 400 W leaving?
bob desperately claims: “…due to the insulating property of the gap between the plates.”
bob, the gap is a vacuum. A vacuum has no effect on photons.
Try some other desperate ploy.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Of course I am not acknowledging this
1) That at 244 K…244 K…244 K, 400 W is leaving the system.
because of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium
If the plates are at the same temperature, 244, 244, 244 400 watts can’t be leaving the system, with the plates separated.
Because of this
“Two physical systems are in thermal equilibrium if there is no net flow of thermal energy between them when they are connected by a path permeable to heat. Thermal equilibrium obeys the zeroth law of thermodynamics. A system is said to be in thermal equilibrium with itself if the temperature within the system is spatially uniform and temporally constant.”
When separated the temperature of the green plates immediately drops such that the green plates can no longer emit 400 watts from the system.
JD,
exactly, a vacuum is a very good insulator.
Also it doesn’t impede the photons from moving from the green plate to the blue plate and adding their energy to the blue plate.
Well, that is another desperate ploy.
Nothing new.
bob continues his confusion: “…400 watts cant be leaving the system, with the plates separated. Because of this…”
bob, now you are confusing “heat” with “E/M energy”. Your deficiency in thermodynamics is evident.
EM radiation is a form of heat, that is, energy transfer.
“If the plates are at the same temperature, 244, 244, 244 400 watts can’t be leaving the system, with the plates separated.”
Except 400 W are leaving the system at 244 K…244 K…244 K. Sorry, blob. You’re in a bit of a pickle.
DA, thanks for another example of your ignorance of physics.
How many does that make?
JD,
You would of noticed I didn’t say heat, so you must be confused about the difference between energy and heat.
But you didn’t notice did you?
Are you done eating?
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
I thought you said heat flow tends to zero?
But now you are fixing both the heat flows and the temperature in your solution to the three plate problem.
Would you mind showing your derivation of that?
Of course you won’t it will be a cold day in hell before you do that.
Hey, and are you done eating?
blob starts with the misrepresentation.
Hey, blob – do the green plates at 244 K emit 400 W, or do they emit < 400 W?
Prove me wrong. (You can’t.)
Wrong bob. I noticed you didn’t “say heat”. You just were confused about it, based on the quote you provided:
“Two physical systems are in thermal equilibrium if there is no net flow of thermal energy between them when they are connected by a path permeable to heat.”
Your next ploy, please.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
You ask
“Hey, blob – do the green plates at 244 K emit 400 W, or do they emit < 400 W?"
If you separate the plates at T = 0 T is for time
The green plates emit 400 watts at T = 0 and return to 400 watts at some time x after T = 0 when the system returns to steady state.
Between time T = 0 and time T = x, the green plate emits less than 400 watts.
So at t = 0, 400 W are entering the system, and 400 W are leaving. So what you are claiming is impossible, that 400 W are passing through the system at 244 K…244 K…244 K, is happening at t = 0.
Then the plates decide they’re bored of thermodynamic equilibrium, and that they will just cool, because it’s the thing to do. So at t = 1, they drop in temperature so that only 399 W are leaving. So now 400 W are entering, and only 399 are leaving, so only 399 W are doing what you are claiming is impossible, and passing through the system.
But now there’s an imbalance, so the green plates have to warm back up again, which they do, so that there’s now 400 W leaving again, at 244 K…244 K…244 K.
The plates are happy to be back at thermodynamic equilibrium again, wondering why they chose to leave it in the first place.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
It is and always was a steady state problem, no matter how hard you try, you can’t make it a equilibrium problem because I have shown that solution is false.
This is awful
“Then the plates decide theyre bored of thermodynamic equilibrium, and that they will just cool, because its the thing to do. So at t = 1, they drop in temperature so that only 399 W are leaving.”
The green plates cool because they are receiving less than they are emitting.
Remember, once the plates are separated the green plates now emit from both sides.
Remember you are trying to pound a steady state problem through an equilibrium hole.
Not going to win the science award that way.
bob, you can dream up imaginative pseudoscience forever. But the green plates receive the same energy when separated, as when together. And, they emit the same separated as when together.
Consequently, the separated temps remain, 244 K…244 K…244 K.
Your incorrect solution violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Now, for your next ploy….
Nope JD,
Once separated the green plates emit from 2 sides, when together they emitted from only one, so when separated they emit twice as much.
And JD,
I’ll add that your diagram shows the green plates emitting from both sides.
Can’t keep your shit straight can you?
The green plates are emitting the same flux, 200 W/m^2, from both sides, but one side is returned.
That’s likely one of the things confusing you. Maybe a diagram will help:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
JD,
But it’s not returned because the plates are at the same temperature, no violation of the 2nd law.
Still can’t keep your shit straight.
What a maroon.
That’s what we’ve telling you for months, bob.
The plates are at the same temperature.
DA…”EM radiation is a form of heat, that is, energy transfer”.
EM = electromagnetic energy. It is composed of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and it is defined further by its frequency.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. It has no frequency and no field.
Heat and EM have nothing physically in common. The only relationship is in the atomic structure where electrons can absorb and emit EM.
When an electron drops from a higher energy state to a lower energy state it emits EM. THE RELATED HEAT IS LOST!!! That is the temperature drops.
When an electron absorbs EM, the EM is lost. The electron rises to a higher energy state and the temperature rises. In any process involving heat and EM neither one can exist at the same time as the other. One is always converted to the other.
The green plates cool because they are receiving less than they are emitting.
Once the plates are separated the amount of watts leaving the system goes down due to the insulating property of the gap between the plates.
blob cant keep his story straight…
…regardless, he is still missing the point. Most importantly, what you Pro
Accidentally pressed “submit comment” too early…
“The green plates cool because they are receiving less than they are emitting.”
“Once the plates are separated the amount of watts leaving the system goes down due to the insulating property of the gap between the plates.”
blob cant keep his story straight…
…regardless, he is still missing the point. Most importantly, what you people are arguing is impossible, you already acknowledge is happening. As I said, at 244 K…244 K…244 K… you have 400 W entering the system, and 400 W leaving, so you must have 400 W passing through.
For whatever reason you claim the green plates start cooling, as they start cooling you might have e.g 399 W leaving, or 390 W leaving, etc. In which case, you still have 399 W passing through the system, or 390 W passing through, which is still what you are claiming can’t be happening.
Your argument boils down to this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-365475
whatever way you look at it.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
The thing is,
You just said this
“As I said, at 244 K244 K244 K you have 400 W entering the system, and 400 W leaving, so you must have 400 W passing through.”
But you are not understanding that it violates the zero law of thermodynamics, systems, and I mean each plate as a separate system, can’t transfer heat when they are in thermodynamic equilibrium, which they are if they are at the same temperature, so no 400 watts flowing through the whole system of all the plates.
You are missing my point that with no temperature difference you can not have the heat flowing through the system.
I have proved your solution of 244, 244, 244 false because it has to satisfy both the zero law and the first law at the same time. It doesn’t.
Sorry charlie, perhaps your local physics professor could explain it to you.
“You are missing my point that with no temperature difference you can not have the heat flowing through the system.”
See?
It’s just as I said.
This is their argument:
We agree that without x, 400 W is leaving (thus flowing through) the system.
But, you’re wrong, because you need x for 400 W to flow through the system.
Where x = “a temperature difference”.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Here is the heat flow equation
Q/t = kA(T2 – T1)/ d
Notice that if you input 244 for both T1 and T2 the result is zero.
That’s right blob, well done.
So there’s no heat flow between the plates at 244 K…244 K…244 K.
And still 400 W of energy are flowing through the system. Because 400 W is going in, and 400 W are coming out.
Your argument, once again:
We agree that without x, 400 W is leaving (thus flowing through) the system.
But, you’re wrong, because you need x for 400 W to flow through the system.
Where x = “a temperature difference”.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
And your argument boils down to
“Because”
‘We agree that without x, 400 W is leaving (thus flowing through) the system.’
No dimwit, stop twisting what people are saying to pretend they agree with you!
They don’t.
No one has agreed that with 244^3, 400 W is ‘thus flowing through’ the system.
Because it doesnt, except in your fantasies of magical mystery energy that you cannot find anywhere in physics.
Gordon Robertson says:
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
Who says only that is heat?
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
Written by Rudolf Clausius, 1887.
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
David, anyone can use any defn. of heat and probably will as heat doesn’t exist in an object so heat can be whatever you imagine is hiding in an object.
Let’s use Clausius’ own def. of heat to understand what Clausius meant:
The concentration of a measure of the total KE of atoms in an object and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
What further regards a measure of the total KE of atoms in an object emitted as radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates a measure of its total KE of atoms in an object to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double measure of the total KE of atoms in an object exchanged is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in its measure of the total KE of atoms in the object at the expense of the warmer one.
So pretty much Gordon is correct. Especially when Gordon shouted: “EM IS NOT HEAT”.
David…you’re not really participating in the discussion, per se.
But I know you don’t care about context. Good for you.
Ball4 says:
The concentration of a measure of the total KE of atoms in an object and light beams
The “kinetic energy” of a light particle is its total energy, E=p=hf.
p=momentum.
(c=1)
Here, Clausius clearly refers to “heat radiation,” viz radiation as heat:
Clausius:
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
Braunschweig, 1887
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
The KE, momentum of the atoms in Clausius cold body is reduced transformed exactly equal measure to the energy, momentum of the light rays emitted. Then the process is reversed in the hot body and called a word not to be used around here.
Again Clausius meaning: “What further regards a measure of the total KE of atoms in an object emitted as radiation as happening…”
I’m not sure at that time they realized light rays also possessed momentum, I’d have to research it. Thanks for pointing out light rays do possess momentum and I’ll point out polarization too.
However, it doesn’t really matter what Clausius said.
Heat is the transfer of energy.
TEMPERATURE, not heat, is the average kinetic energy of a gas’s molecules.
Hence EM energy is certainly heat – the transfer of energy.
Ball4 says:
The KE, momentum of the atoms in Clausius cold body is reduced transformed exactly equal measure to the energy, momentum of the light rays emitted.
I’m sorry, I have no idea what this means.
Maybe try again, in English?
You’re both kind of embroiled in some kind of off-topic conversation about nothing of any significance…but please carry on.
The KE & momentum of the atoms in Clausius cold body is reduced, transformed in exactly equal measure to the energy & momentum of the light rays emitted. Then the process is reversed in the hot body and called a word not to be used around here (absorp_tion).
Hence EM energy is certainly energy a measure of total KE of the atoms (heat) can be transformed into EM energy & momentum of the incoherent, unpolarized light rays.
Ball4: As usual, I can’t tell heads from tails of what you’re trying to say.
I’m guessing English isn’t your first language. That’s fine, but I’m also not going to try to decipher your sentences.
David, then you put in the exact meaning & only the exact meaning for heat that Clausius used in your own sentences. Clausius words were translated from the German so are not well designed in English for which you apparently aren’t able to allow or even follow.
It doesn’t matter what Clausius wrote, in English or German.
Heat is the transfer of energy.
Thus EM waves represent heat, which is the basis for soldiers wearing night vision scopes.
Heat is not kinetic energy, or internal energy, or some function of the two. Work is only done when energy is transferred.
“It doesn’t matter what Clausius wrote, in English or German.”
Yet it was David that quoted Clausius! The grandmaster wrote what he did with an appeal to the authority of proper experiment David, your statement shows your lack of understanding basic nature of thermodynamics.
Soldiers wear night vision to observe scenes in the IR, their unaided eyes are useless in that band. To write heat is not KE or total thermodynamic internal energy counters the bulk of Clausius’ and modern authors writing David, you are in a world of your own imagination. You won’t be successful in convincing informed, critical readers with that approach.
Clausius had things to say, but ultimately it doesn’t matter what he said, it’s the physics that matters.
Heat is the transfer of energy.
If you think heat is something else, tell me how much heat is in a liter of nitrogen gas at STP.
Tell me how much heat is in Earth’s ocean.
“If you think heat is something else, tell me how much heat is in a liter of nitrogen gas at STP. Tell me how much heat is in Earth’s ocean.”
Neither object contains any heat which was determined by experiment in Clausius day, but they both contain atoms and thus a measure of the total KE of those atoms.
Something that is not contained in an object per experiment, cannot then transfer out of that object.
‘1) We agree that at 244 K244 K244 K, 400 W is leaving the system.
2) But youre wrong, because it needs to be 244 K290 K244 K for 400 W to leave the system.’
Nope. You’ve become a full-time troll-asshole now, regularly lying about what people say and not needing to even make sense.
No we don’t agree with (1) because it is un-physical, not steady-state, and violates 1LOT and RHTE.
No # 2 is a glaringly FALSE STRAWMAN, because we dont say that at ALL, liar-dimwit-troll.
244-290-244, as you know very well, is found by SOLVING the problem using 1LOT and SB law, with NO ASSUMPTIONS.
DREMT “I made an assumption that heat flow would tend to zero. Which is a pretty safe assumption, really.”
Nope, not safe since its is made-up and violates ordinary laws of physics.
When asked repeatedly for the source of this information, we get nothing but CRICKETS.
Anyone can make up and declare anything they want on this blog, as you have done here with your Q = 0 nonsense.
Then USE IT as if it is an established fact to argue something else, which you do here.
Thats called argument by assertion. Not a valid argument. It is also Circular Reasoning (wiki):
“a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.”
How many examples from the other thread would you like me to provide, whereby you are arguing that because there is 400 W entering the system, there must be 400 W heat flow between the plates (which you know means the plates are at 244 K…290 K…244 K.
Here’s one (first one I could find):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359034
How many do you need before you will apologize for what you just said?
“No we don’t agree with (1) because it is un-physical, not steady-state, and violates 1LOT and RHTE.”
Yup, you do agree with (1), because the green plates at 244 K are emitting 400 W.
You will now want to repeat the arguments blob has made, and I have already rebutted. As you do so, I will just link to the appropriate comment.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
So your argument boils down to nothing happens when you separate the plates.
I get it, nothing happens.
It’s wrong, and violates the laws of thermodynamics but you don’t understand those, and just declare that you are correct.
Perhaps you would like a lollipop.
Nope, my argument against your 244 K…290 K…244 K solution is as described in the many comments further upthread.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Your arguments are still without merit and still violate the laws of thermodynamics.
OK, blob.
Just like how the 244 K…290 K…244 K violates 1LoT, according to Ball4.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
So do you take Ball4’s word for it, and for everything else he says, or only when he makes a mistake.
Or maybe you could explain how 244, 290, 244 violates the First Law, after all it does have 400 watts in and 400 watts out.
But you don’t understand the first law well enough to explain how the 244, 290, 244 solution violates said law.
‘Yup, you do agree with (1), because the green plates at 244 K are emitting 400 W.’
No, liar-asshole-troll. Stop telling us what we THINK!
NOTICE it has the same last number as our solution 244K-290-244K.
By that logic, we can say that YOU MUST AGREE with our solution 244K, 290K, 244K dimwit!
‘whereby you are arguing that because there is 400 W entering the system, there must be 400 W heat flow between the plates (which you know means the plates are at 244 K290 K244 K.’
As I explained but you IGNORED and continue to misrepresent, that is THE RESULT OF SOLVING the problem!
YES, I stated the result that 400 W of heat flows between the plates, AND WHY THIS MAKES SENSE.
So what?
That has nothing whatsoever to with the SOLUTION to the problem, which makes NO SUCH ASSUMPTION!
Now you simply straight up lie about it.
DREMT,
If the facts were supportive of your views you wouldnt need to blather on and on about who said what and when and why (who cares?), and lie and misrepresent what people said.
But the facts do not line up with your assumptions Q = 0. They just don’t.
And now you are simply avoiding that reality.
Nate, you appear to be commenting to yourself. If you have so little to do, you might want to study this:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4
Returns “404 Not Found”
As convincing as anything else coming from Ger*an/JDH
Link did not paste correctly.
Try it now.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
No thanks! It is fake news.
“But you don’t understand the first law well enough to explain how the 244, 290, 244 solution violates said law”
Sounds like you better be the one to explain it then, blob.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
I though you were making the claim that it violates the first law.
But anyway, it doesn’t because
1) For the whole system 400 watts in and 400 watts out.
2) For the green plates, 400 watts from the Blue plate in, and 200 watts out each side for a total of 400 watts, so 400 watts in and 400 watts out.
3) For the blue plate, 400 watts in from the heater, and 200 watts in from each green plate, for a total of 800 watts in. Output at 290 K is 400 watts to each green plate for a total of 800 watts out.
So I will expect no better than an OK Blob for that.
No blob, explain how it violates 1LoT. You said I wouldn’t be able to, implying you could.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
You made the claim that the 244, 290, 244 violated the first law, so you should be able to support your claim.
I was challenging you to support your claim, I was not implying that I could explain how the 244, 290, 240 violates the first law, because it doesn’t.
Your claim, so it’s up to you to back it up.
The claim came from your Team, and you implied you could explain it.
I await your explanation, blob.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
I have never made the claim that the first law is violated by 244, 290, 244. And I never implied that I could. Because I can’t because the 244, 290, 244 solution does not violate the first law. One reason being that it is the correct solution to the problem.
You have made the claim that 244, 290, 244 is wrong.
How about you back that up, but you are not smart enough to do that.
I have proved that your 244, 244, 244 is wrong.
You have not proved that 244, 290, 244 is wrong.
I await your explanation, blob.
Wait til a cold day in hell then HUMPTY DREMPTY,
I am not doing your sides work for you.
You need to do the work to prove that 244, 290, 244 is wrong.
I have been waiting for about a year now.
#2
I await your explanation, blob.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
As I have been waiting for you to explain how you arrived at the 244, 244, 244 solution.
I have been waiting longer than you.
Number 546.
#3
I await your explanation, blob.
You have to do your own homework child
#4
I await your explanation, blob.
FYI,
DREMT states 244-290-244 violates 1LOT here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-363705
Just one more claim he cannot backup.
Scott R
“Ken Im not sure there will ever be a direct, economically feasible reason to explore space. ”
Capitalism works by adding value.
Curiousl the first step is lending imaginary money to generate debt.
Businesses use that debt as capital to carry out profitable activities.
The value is created when the debt is repaid, when repayment is due.
You can see what happens when this goes wrong. In 2008 it was realised that a combination of derivatives and sub-prime mortgages meant that a lot of debt would never be repaid. The value expected from that debt would never appear and banks started failing.
The capitalist model is failing on Earth, so the logical place to invest debt and create new value is off Earth, in commercial exploitation of space.
E-man, any luck finding that “strong experimental evidence” for the GHE, yet?
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Nah, that’s “strong pseudoscience”.
Keep looking….
JDHuffman
Pearls before swine. Why should I bother discussing details of the evidence with a denier like yourself?
As a good Popperian you should be the one trying to falsify the evidence.
Now E-man, there’s no need for the insults, just because you can’t find any “strong experimental evidence” for GHE and AGW.
Evidence for AGW via an enhanced greenhouse effect:
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present, J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006, Chen et al, (2007).
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
Review – The Spectral Signature of Recent Climate Change, Brindley & Bantges (2016)
Abstract: Spectrally resolved measurements of the Earths reflected shortwave (RSW) and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere intrinsically contain the imprints of a multitude of climate relevant parameters. Here, we review the progress made in directly using such observations to diagnose and attribute change within the Earth system over the past four decades. We show how changes associated with perturbations such as increasing greenhouse gases are expected to be manifested across the spectrum and illustrate the enhanced discriminatory power that spectral resolution provides over broadband radiation measurements. Advances in formal detection and attribution techniques and in the design of climate model evaluation exercises employing spectrally resolved data are highlighted. We illustrate how spectral observations have been used to provide insight into key climate feedback processes and quantify multi-year variability but also indicate potential barriers to further progress. Suggestions for future research priorities in this area are provided.
Citation: H. E. Brindley, R. J. Bantges (2016), Current Climate Change Reports, DOI: 10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5.
More papers on this subject are listed here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
DA, if I pick one to debunk, you will just say that one didn’t count.
So, you pick the one with the best “evidence”.
EM,
Evidence of what? Higher thermometer temperatures result from exposure to heat sources hotter than the thermometer. That’s what thermometers are designed to measure.
This can be confirmed by experiment.
If you are claiming an alternative mechanism for this phenomenon, you need to specify what it is, and why it cannot be explained by known physics. Of course you can’t, bu this is no barrier to deluded pseudoscientific GHE cultists.
Until you can actually describe this mythical GHE, it has less reality than unicorns – which at least can be described, and they are mythical too.
Try agin. Thermometers respond to heat – not mythical non-existent effects.
Cheers.
–Entropic man says:
July 18, 2019 at 4:03 PM
Scott R
Ken Im not sure there will ever be a direct, economically feasible reason to explore space.
Capitalism works by adding value.–
I would says Capitalism works by creating value.
I would agree that creating value similar to adding value.
Socialism works by taking value.
And the power/force of socialism is in destroying value.
“Curiously the first step is lending imaginary money to generate debt.”
Capitalism creates money. One might be attempted to say it isn’t
print money, but it has and still does.
Money is one of greatest tools ever invented.
Of course governments also print money.
Government is like referees, they shouldn’t be players of the game, rather they govern the game. If governing, a government creates wealth by enabling a good game.
Sure…so what’s the economically feasible reason to explore space?
–David Appell says:
July 19, 2019 at 7:14 PM
Sure…so what’s the economically feasible reason to explore space?–
It similar to the economically feasible reason to explore Antarctica or the bottom of ocean.
There are differences {obviously}.
One difference is that even though there more water in space than on Earth, water in space is currently very valuable and useful- though it will always be valuable and useful.
Or water in space is similar to oil on Earth. This has a lot similarities. One is you can’t drill for oil without a market demand
for oil.
One can’t mine water in space without a market demand for rocket fuel in space.
Another thing similar, the investment cost of drilling oil in the ocean is more expensive than mining water in space, but there is huge market demand for oil on Earth- allowing cheap oil.
Zharkova et al 2019 may have to be withdrawn.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-study-journal-temperature-earth-distance-sun-scientific-reports-paper-a9009811.html?amp
entropic…from your link…”A highly respected science journal has said it will examine how it came to publish a study suggesting the climate crisis and rising temperatures around the world are the result of natural solar cycles and the Earth getting closer to the Sun”.
Any journal that interferes in science should be shut down. This is nothing more than idiots manipulating the peer review fiasco to force their own POVs.
Scientific misconduct!!!
Unfortunately not.
Zharkov et al 2019 draw conclusions about terrestial temperature change. This is based on their calculated variations of 1.8 million kilomtres in the distance between Earth and Sun due to planetary alignments.
That is much bigger than the actual variation. This error invalidates their conclusions, hence the likely withdrawal.
Nothing to do with scientific misconduct.
entropic…” That is much bigger than the actual variation. This error invalidates their conclusions, hence the likely withdrawal.
Nothing to do with scientific misconduct”.
It’s not the business of journals to do science. It’s not their business to evaluate whether a claim in a paper is right or wrong. If that was the case, then journals would be determining science.
But, wait!!! That is what the jerks are doing…presenting only one paradigm and rejecting other valid science.
That is scientific misconduct.
If there is an error in the paper let other scientists rebut the claim so the original authors can rebut. That’s how science is supposed to work, not by scientists with a conflict of interest influencing journals to support only one POV.
IIRC they got the ephemeris data from JPL and did their own correct barycentre calculation. They then calculated the effect on the Earth-Sun orbital difference, which is where they got it wrong.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/nature-scientific-reports/
Gordon Robertson says:
Its not the business of journals to do science. Its not their business to evaluate whether a claim in a paper is right or wrong.
Wacko.
Gordon Robertson says:
Any journal that interferes in science should be shut down
Shut down by whom?
Journals are businesses, in that they have reputations to uphold. Or people will stop reading them.
Gordon thinks journals should publish any old sh!t just to make him happy, when sh!t like his is too laughable to get published even in the cheapo amateurish journals — like that one that published Ed Berry.
Gordon is insisting on equal rights for the incompetent (like him).
DA,
Scientific publishing is immensely profitable. Billions, and billions, and billions.
As has been shown, journals will publish any old rubbish (even computer generated gibberish) in their insatiable desire to generate profits.
Imagine, Governments fund research, then journals charge for publishing it, and then for letting readers read the results of Government funded research. Journals even get authors to sign over copyright of their manuscript (generally illegal in most countries where the funding body retains copyright, but who cares?).
Supposed peer reviewers are unpaid, (and sometimes dont actually exist), but of course the journal doesnt care. Why should they? Profit is the name of the game.
Luckily, services such as Sci-Hub offer a way around paywalls, by making publicly funded research available to the public. The journals complain bitterly about the theft of “their” intellectual property, but get little sympathy from me.
Pay for reading publicly funded research if you like. I choose not to. The publishers are free to sue me if they so desire. I wish them luck if they do.
Cheers.
Entropic man,
The complaint is over the earth / sun / planet distances. She literally took that information from JPL. Take out Zharkova – take out JPL. You can’t have it both ways.
Zharkova’s paper is probably the most important climate research paper of the decade.
Scott R
“Zharkova’s paper is probably the most important climate research paper of the decade.”
*
Did you ever read anything written by Leif Svalgaard? He is a giant compared with this lady whose thoughts you seem to be so pretty much convinced of.
And the next Sun specialist is a regular WUWT guest post editor: Javier.
You should google below WUWT with ‘Javier Zharkova’ an read his repeated critiques about her papers.
Remember that well-hawked prediction by Abdussamatov about a coming decline in total solar irradiance?
It’s failing. Utterly:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/04/abdussamatovs-prediction-of-solar.html
A 2012 prediction about the Sun on WUWT by Norman Page was also completely wrong:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/03/them-that-cant-learn-doctor-dr-norman.html
Deniers prefer to forget that and just move on the next prediction.
David, please stop trolling.
Roy says “The six Apollo missions were planned so that the sun would not be very high in the sky to limit how hot the astronauts and lunar module would get.”
That shouldn’t make any difference because there is no atmosphere. It is purely the surface area that is exposed to sunlight that determines how hot an object becomes. If an astronaut were to walk on the equator only his helmet and shoulders would be exposed. Whereas at high latitudes an upright walking astronaut would have half his body exposed to the sun. There is no atmosphere that would otherwise filter the amount of sun at high latitudes.
Actually the length of the shadow of an object is a measure how much solar energy the object is exposed to, not its latitude.
Huh??
DA,
Begone, witless troll!
Chris Schoneveld says:
That shouldnt make any difference because there is no atmosphere. It is purely the surface area that is exposed to sunlight that determines how hot an object becomes.
So an astronaut with a 1 m2 cross cross section would get just as hot on the dark side of the Moon as on the bright side?
Just as hot at a pole as on the equator?
DA,
More stupid gotchas?
How are you going to get the Sun to shine on the “dark” side? Maybe you lobbed a petard instead of a gotcha, and you’ve been hoist by it!
It seems as though you might be in the grip of some form of religious fanaticism. Do you find yourself mindlessly and repetitively posting irrelevant graphics as “evidence”?
Do you keep asking the same inane questions about whether various forms of matter can be heated and allowed to cool? That is a known consequence of radiation being absorbed and emitted. No mystery, or hidden significance.
Facts are facts, no matter how hard you deny them. I know you can’t help yourself. That’s the nature of fanatics. Keep it up.
Cheers.
I am not talking about the dark side of the moon. Obviously the respondents to my point didn’t get what I meant.
Let’s take a plate of 1 m x 1 m of 1 cm thick. If it is positioned upright on the equator, its surface area facing the sun is about 0.01 m2. The same plate near the pole standing upright with its full surface of m2 facing the low sun – where the sun is at a long angle to the surface of the moon – will receive almost 100 times more sunlight than the upright plate at the equator.
chris…”It is purely the surface area that is exposed to sunlight that determines how hot an object becomes.”
Not really. The angle at which the Sun strikes the object has to be taken into account. Otherwise, it would be as hot in the Arctic and Antarctic as at the Equator.
Gordon, I agree with you when you compare the amount of sunlight that the surface of the moon receives. I am not talking about the surface of the moon but of the surface area of the person standing on the moon. When the sun is at a low angle (near the moon’s pole) a person standing upright would receive much more sunlight than a person standing upright on the equator. Obviously the ground near the poles receive per m2 land much less solar radiation than at the equator. The amount of sunlight an object receives is independent of the sun’s position with respect to the moon’s surface, but is solely dependent on the surface area of that object that faces the sun.
Dr. Spencer,
How hard would it be for you to create this trend map but split the data into 2 sets? Nov-April, May-Oct. Then create a trend map for various periods of time? 1979-present, 20 yr, 10yr, 5yr.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/december2018/Trend_to_201812.PNG
I believe if this data matches the NOAA data, there should be some interesting seasonal / time frame divergences found. I discovered that the cell by cell monthly data exists to do this type of analysis, but I don’t have the time to do this myself. Hopefully it is something you might be interested in.
Thanks,
Scott
Scott R
“I discovered that the cell by cell monthly data exists to do this type of analysis…”
So you discovered! Aha. How interesting.
I come back to your need to show that the Nino3+4 area explains, if I well understood your comment upthread, nearly everything necessary to understand global temperatures.
Look at JMA’s worldwide anomaly distribution for the three recent major El Nino phases, the latest being the least of the three:
1. 1983
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1983/gridtemp198304e.png
2. 1998
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp199804e.png
3. 2016
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp201604e.png
It is evident that El Nino alone can’t be responsible for all that, let alone could the small window 5N-5S–170W-120W explain us why this should be the case.
{ Please keep in mind that JMA has the global temperature record with the smallest trends over both its entire period (1891-now) and the satellite era. }
*
A good way to show this kinda ubiquity of the El Nino phenomenon is to generate evenly distributed subsets of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid, and to in turn generate time series of these subsets.
Here is a graph comparing, for Dec 1978 – Dec 2018, the full grid (9504 cells) with a 256 cell subset (5%) and a 1024 cell subset (10%):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wAY2MBQ_6nLQ6h2Eeq6WPDuT8HmGBqzN/view
You see the amazing similarity, at both anomaly and running mean levels.
This is nothing I discovered by my own: it is a continuation of what a commenter named ‘Olof R’ has presented 2 years ago at WUWT (with ony 18 grid cells).
Olof’s comment to his graph was: “El Nino is evrywhere”.
*
To conclude, below is a grah comparing UAH6.0 LT for
– the Globe
– the Tropics (20N-20S)
– the famous 5N-5S–170W-120W grid area
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1055liC7jDQuGVQV-TUq3GKrM4q40BV3i/view
Trends 1978-2018, in C / decade
– Globe 0.13
– Tropics 0.12
– Nino3+4 0.09
I love this French proverb: “Nul n’est prophète en son pays”, something like “No one is a prophet in his own country”.
*
You might be able to process UAH’s grid using the text processor awk (should work in Windows as well), instead of writing an own software package as I did. V&V using Excel was hard work.
But as soon as you move to huge GHCN data sets, Excel is no longer useful except for showing graphs (I’m too lazy to generate Gnuplot data).
Bindidon… up thread in case you missed it…
“Bindidon,
Thanks for your continuous support. I made a request to Dr Spencer for support on this matter of summer / winter split, multiple timeframe trend analysis via this blog. Not sure if he will read it or help out. Hopefully they have a budget for that type of thing… or some students in need of a project. On the other hand, I’m struggling with my work / life balance right now, also trying to prepare my life and finances for the GSM and my anticipated economic collapse that will come with it, and need to avoid reinventing the data set wheel so to speak. Taking on the data myself is plan B if I have no other choice.”
In response to you last post… I’m still not convinced. lol
You have a cycle on top of a cycle. You have El Nino, but then you also have PDO. While it is true, the UAH departures are getting larger and larger with each El Nino since 1980, the southern ocean temperature has been dropping. We will not be able to put the proper multi-decadal trend line on UAH until the southern ocean returns to it’s 1980 values, because the southern ocean seems to have an inverse relationship to global temperatures. (and you can even argue in conjunction with a major volcanic eruption occurring in the early 80s, and a smaller solar cycle) This is a function of the speed of the water mixing between the southern ocean and everywhere else… not a change in the energy balance of the earth.
Even then, we will then ask the next question… how about the larger period natural cycles up to and including GSM? It is my expectation, that there is a very large energy deficit in Antarctica since 1980. When the cold water mixes in finally, we will know for sure if I was right. Also keep in mind that the ocean is also a 3 dimensional place. Despite the small appearance on the map of the negative trend areas, the ocean is DEEP. Cold water sinks. Warm water rises. This creates a false appearance that the warm side is winning. A simple change in upwelling could chill out the entire globe, and fast just by cooling the top layer of the ocean.
One other note. El Nino moved the UAH from +0.74 in 1998 to -.27 in 2000. That is roughly a 1 deg C change in 2 years. ALL the rest of the climate forcers on the planet moved UAH from 0.74 to 0.86 (a change of just 0.12 deg c) in 18 years considering El Nino was a wash between the two periods. That means the following forcers summed produced +0.12 of warming in 18 years:
PDO
AMO
Accumulated effects of man-made heat islands
Co2
other man made gases
albedo changes from melting glaciers
I’m not going to through cloud cover in that group, because I believe that is tied to El Nino, and thus would be a double dip. Note, there were also no major eruptions between 98 and 2016.
I hope I’ve done my side of this argument justice.
Scott R
“On the other hand, I’m struggling with my work / life balance right now, also trying to prepare my life and finances for the GSM and my anticipated economic collapse that will come with it,…”
Good grief! Are you serious? Jesus.
Again: read Svalgaard, it will help you in avoiding to put lots of money into such nonsensical garbage.
Scott R
“Also keep in mind that the ocean is also a 3 dimensional place.”
Oh thanks for the precious hint!
“Despite the small appearance on the map of the negative trend areas, the ocean is DEEP. ”
Maybe a careful study of the page linked to below might help you to adapt your view to a very complex reality:
https://tinyurl.com/yxu37hxx (tinyURLed due to the d-c syndrome)
Bindidon,
I read the paper on heat content. I’ve actually read that one before actually. You know… it IS possible that the heat content of the ocean is actually increasing. HOWEVER, WHY is sea level rise linear? It always comes back to that. My thought is that the ocean’s heat content should of course be rising. We are in an interglacial after all. The earth’s orbital forcing is constantly adding energy to the system at perhaps a constant rate which is creating the linear trend. For me, it is unknown which natural forcer time frame does the ocean heat content / sea level follow. Does it follow the 400 year cycle? The 2000 year cycle? Or the 100,000 year cycle. I’m not sure. It seems to rise regardless of the 11 year cycle, El Nino, or even the 100 year cycle. When the global ocean temperature decreased by 1 deg C between 1878 and 1917, see level still rose. That tells me that the change in ocean temperature was a function of the speed of the ocean mixing between warm and cold areas, OR that sea level increase at that time had nothing to do with the heat content at all… or that the energy added to the system during that time remained constant despite the drop in temperatures.
There are other possibilities for the sea level rise other than the heat content. Perhaps isostatic rebound was mis-calculated. Perhaps there is a geological process taking place. Perhaps 400 years of increasing solar irradiance did this.
In any case, I’m skeptical of the heat content increase. I’m not convinced it is happening, and if it is, it’s happening at a constant rate, and I therefore don’t think it is Co2. If it was, you would see the sea levels increasing at a faster and faster rate.
scott R wrote:
While it is true, the UAH departures are getting larger and larger with each El Nino since 1980, the southern ocean temperature has been dropping.
UAH LT Southern Hemisphere Ocean trend = +0.09 C/dec since 1978
= +0.19 C/dec over last 15 years.
Appell
As usual, you come, exactly like does the Robertson troll, into any discussion without understanding exactly what the people mean.
Scott R and I we are talking about the Southern Hemisphere BELOW 50S, you genius!
You are really like Robertson, but with opposite sign.
I asked you recently for no longer glueing your poor, context-free comments everywhere.
And I ask you AGAIN for that, Appell.
Produce your comments here as everybody can do, but stop your useless replies!
One Robertson is largely enough for this blog.
Just as easily found, if you spend 5 minutes to go look for it:
“Recent Southern Ocean warming and freshening driven by greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion,” Neil C. Swart et al, Nat Geo 2016
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0226-1
Also:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2731
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2010JCLI3682.1
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5558/1275
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2008JCLI2131.1
Bindidon says:
Again: read Svalgaard
I second that. Everything I’ve read of Leif Svalgaard’s, both on WUWT and elsewhere, seems to be written with a high degree of integrity.
David, please stop trolling.
Bindidon I will read it for you, not for David Appell. lol
David Appell. What exactly is you purpose here? Are you trying to discredit Dr Spencer’s work? Clearly according to UAH, there has been a decrease in temperature over Antarctica since 1980 and over the southern ocean. The HADSST3 backs that up. The southern ocean has cooled while most of the rest of the globe warmed.
Regardless Antarctica is cold, and will remain cold. In fact it is so cold that snow that falls there never melts. This is most likely the reason the earth has been getting colder for 10s of millions of years since the Antarctic glacier formed. More than likely, it will continue to slowly cool us long term until the sun’s energy output increases in hundreds of millions of years.
Did you know that seeing glaciers and icebergs, and seeing a less salty southern ocean is actually a sign of INCREASED snow fall on Antarctica? The more snow falls, the more ice forms, the more glaciers move down to the ocean where they melt. The meridional jet stream flow regardless of the cause (CO2, GSM, magnetic field) will dump more snow on Antarctica. That gives us a negative feedback to any additional forcing CO2 provides, keeping sea levels at bay. (and it isn’t providing much forcing in my opinion) There is absolutely NO sign that Antarctica is melting and that we have any issue there at all.
The clowns are still clinging to their dead squirrels. Both the “plates” and Moon/rotating issues have been shown to be pseudoscience. But the clowns try futilely to keep them alive.
Would they be even more frustrated to learn that the whole “tidal-locking” thingy is also pseudoscience?
But, we won’t go there….
It’s quite amusing watching them spontaneously combust over both issues!
☺️
Full meltdown.
So far it’s only the deniers here who need to keep reassuring themselves they are right.
DA,
You are right. The delusional GHE true believers are in denial of the fact that the GHE has never even been usefully described.
The loony climate cultists deny that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. And temperatures drop at night. And during winter.
Pack of bumbling deniers. Not a rational thinker amongst the lot of them, eh?
I look forward to your continuing support.
Cheers.
DA, are you still denying reality?
David, I’m sure someone like Svante will be along to tell you how important and clever you are. It’s OK. Just hold on tight.
Would they be even more frustrated to learn that the whole “tidal-locking” thingy is also pseudoscience?
How so?
DA,
Is that a serious question, or are you just trolling?
Cheers.
He’s trolling.
” Surrounded by NASA officials, Moon walkers, and lawmakers, Trump repeatedly asked NASAs administrator, Jim Bridenstine, why astronauts couldnt go straight to Mars instead of going to the Moon first.”
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/19/20701061/president-trump-nasa-administrator-jim-bridenstine-artemis-mars-direct-moon-apollo-11
Linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
–To get to Mars, you have to land on the Moon, they say, Trump asked Bridenstine, according to a recording provided by Politico. Any way of going directly without landing on the Moon? Is that a possibility?
Bridenstine, who was standing to the right of the president in the Oval Office, replied that the Moon is a proving ground for going to Mars, allowing NASA to test out technologies needed for keeping people alive for extended periods of time on the Red Planet. When we go to Mars were going to have to be there for a long period of time, so we need to learn how to live and work on another world, said Bridenstine.–
This is standard way of saying it. Wrong, but normal.
Could also say, NASA already tried to go directly to Mars- wasted decades “planning”. But probably shouldn’t tell that to the President.
It’s ridiculous that Trump didn’t ask this question of NASA beforehand, instead of putting them on the spot and making everyone look stupid (Trump most of all).
–Trump made his interest in Mars much clearer today, asking Bridenstine to explain NASAs Moon plans and why they were necessary. He asked Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins his thoughts, to which Collins replied, Mars direct, indicating NASA should go straight to Mars and bypass the Moon altogether. It seems to me Mars direct, Trump replied. I mean, who knows better than these people. Theyve been doing this stuff for a long time. What about the concept of Mars direct?–
Also known and popularized by The Case for Mars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars
“Mars Direct
“The Mars Direct plan was originally detailed by Zubrin and David Baker in 1990. The Case for Mars is, according to Zubrin, a comprehensive condensation for laymen of many years’ work and research. Chapters one and four deal with Mars Direct most completely.”
Though Zubrin was arguing against existing NASA plans to go to Mars, and he thought his ideas were quicker, cheaper, and doable.
So answer your question, well before 1990.
But I blame Zubrin for SLS 🙂
That would probably make him very angry. But more truth than he would like to admit.
Basically it’s bring LH2 to Mars and turn it into methane using CO2 of Mars atmosphere. Zubrin also argues the space radiation [GCR} is not a problem.
And it is a problem.
It’s funny to me, that the Mars fans used to argue that Moon was bad choice because of harmful radiation.
Mars is more problem.
I think solvable.
But I would say the main problem with NASA Mars exploration program, is political. And political because Press has and will attack the idea as waste of tax dollars.
So what will press say if Trump wants to go to Mars. They will lie and say it cost more than New Green Deal.
But if they are “fair” they say it will costs trillion of dollars.
And there is so much doubt, it very hard to argue against.
So, I think NASA explore the Moon, a prove it will cost trillions, but NASA seems very willing to try to prove the naysayers correct.
NASA is it’s own worst enemy.
Now what Trump seems to be doing, appears cheaper than I would like. Mainly because he wants to do it quickly, basically, land some female on the Moon.
I think it should 40 billion dollar program, and start with robotic exploration and finish with a few crew landing- and finish lunar program within 10 years.
And agree with Zubrin that NASA “likely” going to get bog down on the Moon and not go to Mars.
Lunar base, NASA mining water equals: NASA bogged down on Moon [and wasting tax dollars AND not going to Mars].
Mars where it at. Moon boring.
Me DREMT. You troll.
DA,
Off you go then. Godspeed and good luck. You might be able to hitch a ride on one of Elon Musks explosive devices.
I believe Elon is seeking volunteers to have electrodes implanted into their brains. Perfectly safe, and might give you real telepathic powers, according to Elon. Then you would be able to abandon your mindreading studies, wouldnt you?
Do you intend to advance science by volunteering? Elon Musk is behind it, so what could possibly go wrong?
I support your scientific endeavours – best of luck.
Cheers.
–David Appell says:
July 19, 2019 at 9:04 PM
Mars where it at. Moon boring.–
David, I want to explore Mars.
But I have endless argued the Moon vs Moon thing.
The real question is how do get to Mars.
Btw, both the actual way, and the process needed
to move the political process which is needed to get it
done.
A common argument is we need strong presidential leadership.
And I would say the strongest presidential leadership, ever
to enter the limelight have tried {and failed}.
Reagan, I imagine, now that so much time has past, most non crazy people could admit, was example of strong presidential leadership.
And NASA screwed Reagan. Madly stab him in the back and basically
were crazy dumbasses.
Now might imagine Obama was great presidential leadership, though imagining he strong presidential leadership require certain kinds of brain damage [and basically incomprehensible idea to hold in one’s skull]. But I vaguely grasp, that Obama might been seen as “good leadership”. Best he did was not pay much attention to NASA.
NASA likewise mostly ignored him.
So I think strong presidential leadership is not what is needed, nor weak presidential leadership. I think what needed is for NASA to stop cutting itself. And NASA needs to take it’s job seriously.
I think it’s more reasonable that the public will quickly become bored of Mars, just as they did the Moon.
There is nothing boring about the Moon or Mars.
–Mars where it at. Moon boring.–
Just case you might be imagining that boring nature of the Moon will somehow prevent NASA from getting bogged down on Moon.
Is the ISS, boring?
Timeline:
“ISS Historical Timeline
President Reagan directs NASA to build the ISS
January 25, 1984
President Ronald Reagan’s State of the Union Address directs NASA to build an international space station within the next 10 years.”
“First ISS Segment Launches
November 20, 1998
The first segment of the ISS launches: a Russian proton rocket named Zarya (“sunrise”).”
https://www.issnationallab.org/about/iss-timeline/
Could also say, NASA already tried to go directly to Mars- wasted decades planning.
When was that?
“The Trump administrations stated goal for deep space human exploration is to go to the Moon. The very first space policy directive that Trump signed in December of 2017 was to send people back to the Moon to establish a sustainable presence there. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations, the directive states.”
Dumb.
US goal should be to explore space to determine if and where there could be new markets.
The Economist:
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2011/06/30/the-end-of-the-space-age
Make an argument against the use of NASA.
NASA should attempt to prove the article wrong.
Basically the argument is, the global satellite market is obviously needed, but “loosely” everything else was waste money- no need to explore the Moon or Mars, etc.
So, I say if NASA can explore the Moon and determine if and where there is mineable water. And as result one gets commerical lunar minning. Then NASA would have proven the Economist Mag, wrong.
And If NASA explores Mars and determine If and where there could be most viable place to have human settlements, the Economist has proven very, very wrong.
But if lunar water can’t mine profitable mined and Mars is unsuitable for settlements, it making the Economist case.
Or people assume one can mine lunar water, and assume one can have human settlements on Mars, but we lack the exploration, allows us to know if this is likely or true.
Why should NASA’s mission be economic, not scientific?
It’s been doing pretty well furthering science, so far.
Anyway, the technology is nowhere ready for accomplishing economic returns.
DA,
You wrote –
“Why should NASA’s mission be economic, not scientific?”
Why not?
NASA hasn’t done terribly well so far, has it? Maybe you would like to list scientific advances made by NASA? As a matter of interest, NASA’s mission seems to be very economic, judging by its PR push to charge fees to license patents derived from the expenditure of public money.
It makes some “NASA technologies” available to the public without a fee. Very noble, considering the public paid for all the “NASA technologies” in the first place!
I believe that NASA has to purchase tickets from the Russians to send US personnel to the International Space Station. Maybe NASA needs more taxpayer funds to develop its own rockets?
That sounds like economics to me. NASA seems to have provided very few actual benefits to the US, albeit at vast cost.
How much do you donate to NASA to advance its “scientific missions”? Nothing? You obviously don’t think NASA’s scientific missions are worth much to you. That’s economics at work. You no doubt have better things to spend your resources on.
Keep at it.
Cheers.
–David Appell says:
July 19, 2019 at 7:39 PM
Why should NASAs mission be economic, not scientific?–
Actually, I agree.
The exploration is step one to science. Exploration causes/creates science. And also creates technology, as people commonly point out, NASA technological “spin offs”- whether they want to claim computer technology, velcro, or Tang.
But I think you meant to say, why should NASA’s mission be about markets.
One reason, is NASA is ordered by Congress to do this.
US is a capitalist country, and NASA works for this capitalistic country.
NASA suppose to be serving the public [and this does not mean eating the public].
But a problem with NASA is it is trying to lower costs {it’s focused on the “economic”} and it’s utter clueless about how to do this.
Meanwhile the US launch market has lowered launch costs.
Or specifically the global satellite market has lowered launch costs.
You can’t lower costs without competition.
No one ever actually wants to lower costs, competition forces the costs to be lowered. A market is only a market if there is competition- people trying to sell you something.
Plus people normally/generally don’t even like selling stuff.
Trump, apparently, is an exception.
–Anyway, the technology is nowhere ready for accomplishing economic returns.–
Nope.
Try this: the exploration “is nowhere ready for accomplishing economic returns”
So, I say if NASA can explore the Moon and determine if and where there is mineable water.
What’s the cost of bring a liter of water from the Moon to Earth? Simply in terms of the kinematics?
NASA spends about $10,000/kg to get a payload into LEO (low-earth orbit). This scales as the planet’s mass, so it’d be about $120/kg from the lunar surface, or $120/liter of water.
How is that remotely economical?
DA,
You wrote –
“Whats the cost of bring a liter of water from the Moon to Earth? Simply in terms of the kinematics?”
What an exceptionally poorly thought out gotcha! Why would anybody bring water from the Moon to the Earth? As to cost in terms of kinematics, you are befuddled, at best. Here –
“Kinematics is a branch of classical mechanics that describes the motion of points, bodies (objects), and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without considering the forces that cause them to move”
If mineable water is available on the Moon, and the Moon is a way station on the way to Mars, then your $120/kg ex the Moon, versus the $10,000/kg ex Earth, seems like any-brainer. Basic economics.
You ask –
“How is that remotely economical?”
Have you gone quite mad (more than usual, that is)? You answered your own gotcha, and got caught by it yourself. Boasting about self inflicted wounds is no great recommendation.
Back to Gotcha U., I suggest.
Cheers.
David, don’t forget that MF suffers from an inability to detect irony. He lives in another world – possibly because of his medications.
Begone, troll!
Coins, plates, buckets of moon water, rotating hammers, ice cubes … Everyone, time to put your toys away and clean up the mess you have made.
Begone, troll!
Stop trolling, right now, you Begonia! You are the trolliest of all uncommenters ‘writing’ here (quotes needed).
Begone, troll!
Children! Behave, or I will force you to read all of the meaningless posts by young Ren.
nurse ratchet, please stop trolling.
Just as a matter of interest, about “models”, David Appell wrote –
“Nor can you show the models are all wrong — it’s just a piece of crap statement lazy deniers try to pass off as something remotely coherent.”
If the results from, say, 131 models give different results, then at most one of them is correct. Unfortunately, it is impossible to state which of them (if any) are correct. In the case that even one could be shown to be correct, then only one would be necessary.
So it is obvious that of 131 , at least 130 are incorrect. In fact, if nobody can say which, if any at all, is correct. This being the case, the assumption that all are incorrect is no different in practical outcomes, to assuming that at most, 1 out of 131 is correct.
David Appears to be in denial of reality – making largely incoherent and incomprehensible statements as “evidence” of something he cannot even describe. Just another fanatical quasi-religious cultist. Any disagreement with his bizarre and fantastical dogma is met with outpourings of vituperation, ranging from silly “gotchas” to ad hominem attacks, obscenities, and anything else to evade having to provide facts to support his fantasies!
GHE true believers have faith. Not much else.
Cheers.
“… ad hominem attacks”
What??? YOU, the greatest in insulting nearly everybody here with your endless “stupid and ignorant” (of course by carefully omitting your friends-in-deny), YOU complain about ad homs ???
B,
I take it you are not disagreeing with anything I said?
I have complained about nothing – you just made that up, didn’t you? That seems a bit stupid. As to ignorant, you don’t seem to know how to describe the GHE. That’s ignorance, isn’t it?
If you disagree, you could always provide some facts to support your disagreement, I suppose.
Otherwise, others might just lump you in with the rest of the stupid and ignorant GHE true believers.
Carry on.
Cheers.
Sorry MF, GHE believers have an enormous pile of incontrovertible evidence that keeps growing day by day. Check out this breaking news:
“Call it the Trump heat wave: The current scorcher is just a taste of whats coming.
Trump policies push parts of Florida and Texas to endure five months a year of a heat index over 100 degrees. Most of the country is entering into the first few hours of a blistering heat wave that will extend well into the weekend.”
https://thinkprogress.org/call-it-the-trump-heat-wave-the-current-scorcher-is-just-a-taste-of-whats-coming-8fa8f1ad6f0f/
Myki claims: “Trump policies push parts of Florida and Texas to endure five months a year of a heat index over 100 degrees.”
“Heat index” is NOT temperature, Myki. Humidity affects how the human body is able to cool itself.
I know, I know, you don’t want to learn any science….
A childish response:
(1) I claimed zero – merely relayed the report.
(2) Who said the heat index is temperature?
Maybe you are overheating?
Ian, please stop trolling.
DM,
Spare me the false sorrow, if you like.
You can’t even describe this magical GHE you believe in. Just a random collection of letters, having precisely nothing to do with greenhouses, and of no effect whatever.
There are many sources of heat – exothermic chemical reactions, nuclear processes, friction, resistance to electric current and so on.
Nowhere in physics is the mythical GHE mentioned as a heat source.
You are producing an enormous pile of incontrovertible evidence that you are in the grip of some quasi-religious fixation. There is no heat producing GHE. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, but religious fanatics such as yourself refuse to accept fact, where it clashes with their deeply held beliefs.
Maybe you need to create another PhD or two for yourself, to strengthen your beliefs. Or, like Michael Mann, you could award yourself a a Nobel Prize!
Cheers.
Mickey…”“Call it the Trump heat wave: The current scorcher is just a taste of whats coming”.
The longest and most severe heat waves in US history were during the 1930s.
No. Wrong again.
Ian, please stop trolling.
DA…”1. Subject of the investigation.
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
Written by Rudolf Clausius, 1887″.
*******
I have already explained that one. Note the date…1887. All scientist in the era, including Stefan, Boltzman, and Planck, thought heat flowed as rays from a body. They had no idea about electromagnetic energy and its relation to the electron. That’s because the electron was not discovered till the 1890s.
It was another 15 years at least, after the discovery,before Bohr put it together and explained how electrons absorb and emit EM. Had Clausius known that, you can be sure he would not have talked about bodies radiating heat at each other.
When heat is converted to EM, it is lost. On the other end, when EM is converted back to heat in a cooler body, it is lost. According to Clausius, that process can only work from a hotter object to a cooler object.
If you read further in that chapter, he brings it back to the 2nd law, claiming that radiation must obey the 2nd law. That is, heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
Earlier in his work, he defines heat as the kinetic energy of atoms.
“They had no idea about electromagnetic energy”
That’s wrong Gordon, Maxwell’s general equations are for an electromagnetic process in a vacuum. These eqn.s were developed from Faraday’s much earlier electromagnetic energy lab experiments (e.g. 1831 discovery of EM induction).
ball1…that reply deserved a demotion to ball1.
I said, “They had no idea about electromagnetic energy and its relation to the electron”. I was nor referring to Faraday’s near field EM, which cannot be transmitted through space like far field.
Gordon, your statement used the word “and” meaning 1) they had no idea about EM energy AND 2) its relation to the electron.
Obviously English “AND” atm. physics remain a challenge for you.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
‘I have already explained that one. Note the date…1887. All scientist in the era, including Stefan, Boltzman, and Planck, thought heat flowed as rays from a body. They had no idea about electromagnetic energy ”
False. IR radiation, and its ability to transfer heat and be absorbed by bodies, and Kirchoffs law had been well explored by then.
Maxwell had already explained EM waves in 1860s.
Hertz tested his ideas by experiments generating EM waves the year before, 1886.
I really get a big laugh when reading such pseudoskeptic blah blah like
“The clowns are still clinging to their dead squirrels. Both the plates and Moon/rotating issues have been shown to be pseudoscience.”
I don’t mind about this plate stuff, no interest!
*
Thus I repeat what Sir Isaac Newton wrote in his Principia translated by Andrew Motte in 1801 in
“The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”
(Book III)
*
[35] While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes: the sun in 26 days; Jupiter in 9h.56m.; Mars in 24 2/3h.; Venus in 23h.; and that in planes not much inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, and according to the orders of the signs, as astronomers determine from the spots of maculae that by turns present themselves to our sight in their bodies; and there is a like revolution of our earth performed in 24h.; and those motions are neither accelerated nor retarded by the actions of the centripetal forces, as appears by Cor. XXII, Prop. LXVI, Book I; and therefore of all others they are the most uniform and most fit for the measurement of time; but those revolutions are to be reckoned uniform not from their return to the sun, but to some fixed star; for as the position of the planets to the sun is non-uniformly varied, the revolutions of those planets from sun are rendered non-uniform.
[36] In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most uniform in restpect to the fixed stars, viz., in 27 d.7 h.43 m., that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that its diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit; upon this account the same face of the moon always turns towards the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moons orbit, nearly; and hence arises a deflection of the moons face from the earth, sometimes toward the east, and other times toward the west, according to the position of the focus toward which it is turned; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moons orbit, or to the difference between its mean and true motions; and this is the moons libration in longitude; but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude arising from the moons inclination on its axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth; for that axis retains the same position to the fixed stars, nearly, and hence the poles present themselves to our view by turns, as we may understand from the example of the motion of the earth, whose poles, by reason of the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic, are by turns illuminated by the sun.
*
The only nonsesne the Peudoskeptic were able to produce was
“Sir Isaac is right; you are wrong”.
As I asked Pseudoskeptic Huffman to explain me where I did any wrong interpretation of Sir Isaac’s wording, Huffman was not able to properly answer.
No explanation… Zero argument.
And the only argument the other Pseudoskeptic nicknamed DREMT was able to produce was that while for the Moon’s rotation, Sir Isaac wrote
“The moon revolved about its axis”
he wrote concerning the planets
“in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes”.
And that minuscule, tiny bit was enough to let Hypermoderator DREMT doubt about the Moon being revolved about its axis, because eventually, Sir Isaac could have meant something quite different. Oh my God! What a giant difference.
The very best came from Pseudoskeptic Flynn:
“Newton could have been wrong” !
This is INCREDIBLE. Pseudoskepticism at its best.
Thus as long as pepole like Huffman and DREMT don’t have anything better to say, I stay on what Newton wrote.
Compare the paragraphs 35 and 36, that speaks a clear language.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Oh I forgot
– No Huffman racehores, no Robertson coins, no DREMT cannonballs.
– And who discredits giants like Lagrange and Laplace should avoid mentioning Tesla, who very probably never read the two paragraphs above!
Laplace and Lagrange very well did (in the original Latin docuemt of course).
binny…” No Huffman racehores, no Robertson coins, no DREMT cannonballs”.
That’s what makes you an idiot. You have no understanding of basic physics but you are willing to misinterpret Isaac Newton in your pathetic appeal to authority.
Gordon squeals,”That’s what makes you an idiot. You have no understanding of basic physics but you are willing to misinterpret Isaac Newton in your pathetic appeal to authority.”
That is rich coming from a moron who still can’t figure out curvilinear translation. Such a simple concept, but apparently not for the simpleton.
HGS, please stop boring.
Robertson
“That’s what makes you an idiot. You have no understanding of basic physics but you are willing to misinterpret Isaac Newton in your pathetic appeal to authority.”
As usual: insults and… lies.
Where did I misinterpret Newton?
That’s already been discussed.
And who is interested to read Andrew Motte’s very orginal text (what I show is a variant adapted into XXeth century English), together with a few other documents, should access this:
https://tinyurl.com/y3q9ebvr
It’s a little bit harder to read.
B,
You quoted me as saying –
Newton could have been wrong. This seems to be a fabrication – some might call it intentional deception, but in your case, stupidity might be an appropriate excuse.
Normally, quotation marks indicate an exact quote, but you may be ignorant of this usage.
Stupidity, ignorance, or both?
Repetitive appeals to authority don’t change facts at all.
” . . . even though the rotational axis of the Moon is not fixed with respect to the stars.”, according to Wikipedia, whereas your Newton quote states the opposite (or “nearly” opposite!).
The Moon’s observed motion, in general can be explained by Newton’s First Law of Motion. As can that of Uranus, whose axis of rotation, unknown to Newton, is roughly aligned to the plane of the ecliptic. No need for spin around any particular planetary axis. As an example, Uranus always presents the same side of the planet to the Sun, but rotates about an axis through the center of that face.
The Moon presents the same face to the Earth, but that face clearly does not rotate about its centre. And neither does any other. Oh well, it really makes no difference, does it? Much ado about nothing.
Cheers.
Your text, Begonia:
“Newtons assumption may have been wrong. How would you show it was correct?”
An irrelevant gotcha
this is not how Uranus rotates
“As an example, Uranus always presents the same side of the planet to the Sun, but rotates about an axis through the center of that face.”
Here is the real story
” Each pole gets around 42 years of continuous sunlight, followed by 42 years of darkness.[58] Near the time of the equinoxes, the Sun faces the equator of Uranus giving a period of daynight cycles similar to those seen on most of the other planets.”
bobdroege
Thank you, I was not aware of that.
b,
Nope. From your reference –
“One pole faces the sun continuously while the other pole faces away. Each pole gets about 42 years of continuous sunlight followed by 42 years of darkness.”
About as silly as the GHE. Do you really believe that the side that faces the Sun continuously gets 42 years of darkness?
Maybe you need to check further than the first story you see.
Cheers.
Mike,
Do you really read it this way?
“About as silly as the GHE. Do you really believe that the side that faces the Sun continuously gets 42 years of darkness?”
That’s not the way I read it. Because that’s not what it says.
And what you said was that one pole continuously faces the sun, which is not true.
Actually I wrote quite a bit more on it than that, Bindidon, but I never expect any of you to correctly represent what I’ve argued, on any subject, so I’m not surprised.
Everybody knows that, DREMT.
Your last reply in our communication was here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-365306
Your wrote
“Its the concept of being revolved about something that makes the connection in my mind that he is referring to an object being spun around a central point, or axis, rather than on its own axis.”
That is what matters here. That subsequently you added
“But we can each find different ways of reading things. I dont think over-analysis of somebodys words, no matter how important he may be, is going to resolve this issue, personally, so I think its a bit of a waste of time.”
is clearly another point.
…and scroll up from that comment, too…
Bindidon is competing for First Place in the clown competition.
He wants me to explain why Newton is wrong. He has phrased it so as to put Newton against reality. He quotes Newton, yet clearly misinterprets him, and tries to imply Newton believed the Moon rotates on its axis. Bindidon continually misses the clear “relative to the stars” in Newton’s words.
The fact is Bindidon, like the other clowns, can’t think for himself. He believes everything put out by “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”. With no understanding of the relevant physics, he must try to claim he is right while also claiming a racehorse is rotating on it axis. Like the other clowns, he doesn’t realize the work of Newton debunks both the Moon-axial-rotation and the “tidal locking” nonsense.
I wish him luck in the clown competition. May the funniest fool win!
Huffman
“He wants me to explain why Newton is wrong. He has phrased it so as to put Newton against reality. He quotes Newton, yet clearly misinterprets him, and tries to imply Newton believed the Moon rotates on its axis”
Here we see how disingenious you think, amd what for a bad loser you are.
Thank you / merci / danke.
Well JP, if you’ve finally come to the realization that Newton didn’t state that the Moon was actually rotating on its axis, that’s good.
No need to thank me. Glad to help.
Huffman
“nd tries to imply Newton believed the Moon rotates on its axis. Bindidon continually misses the clear “relative to the stars” in Newton’s words.”
No Huffman. I don’t.
YOU are missing the perfect parallel Newton has dawn in his paragraphs:
(1) in [35] :
” … but those revolutions are to be reckoned uniform not from their return to the sun, but to some fixed star; for as the position of the planets to the sun is non-uniformly varied, the revolutions of those planets from sun are rendered non-uniform.
(2) in [36]:
“In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most uniform in respect to the fixed stars… ”
You are here the incompetent person, unable to see let alone to understand that Newton refers both the planets’ revolution about theri axis AND the Moon’s revolution about its axis!
What a poor ignorant and unscientific denialist you are, Huffman!
“…but to some fixed star…”
“…in respect to the fixed stars…”
Bindodon, your form is denial is the best. Deny the facts right in front of you.
What a clown.
And to make things definitely clear in puncto Moon’s rotation about its [own] axis, here is the original Latin text form within Newton’s Editio Ultima:
https://tinyurl.com/y4zqyp96
https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=circa%20axem%20suum%20uniformiter%20revolventis
“uniformly rotating around its own axis”
Cette fois, tout est clair, n’est-ce pas?
Bindi,
You’re clearly good at looking up articles on the net and quoting Sir Issac Newton. Let us hear your definition of the moon’s axis? We want to bask in your brilliance.
Stephen P Anderson
I was 100% sure you would come around with one of your ‘brilliant’ remarks (quote needed here).
My thoughts don’t pla any role, Anderson!
What is subject here is Sir Isaac’s exact wording.
Anderstood, Sah?
Let me add this, Mr Anderson
The registered trade merk of all those I name the Pseudoskeptics is above all to pout their own narrative in front of verything.
My definition of the Moon’s axis, if I ever had manged to setup any, hence does on the contary not play any role.
Feel free to tell us yours if needed…
Didn’t think so.
OK
Bindidon, try this in “google translate”:
“Bindidon rosht yruvel zem phony. Maruj stupid wubt incompetent. Qidet loblex stovehars ignorant. Nostreb ibspytnom dem charlaton. Kel abtem desperate ralpmer loist?
Huffman
And I conclude that when somebody starts writing such stubborn, brainless comments, he definitely loses any credibility.
But the positive aspect is here that you sho us to be as good in useless polemic as you are in denialism.
Good to know, not only for me.
Didn’t “google translate” work for you?
Hakuwa sanathe ai uwezo nuk kutafsiri ishte kumasulira mawazo n yako gjendje malingaliro ujanja t ujanja prkthej anu kwa sakt mendimet usahihi tuaja wa t molondola zgjuara.
Mipdugkrtz benum pompous ojar motv uy trselobryc child.
Meanwhile JD, Dr Em T, and Gordo are foaming at the mouth in rage at Newton.
Only person who seems angry on this subject is you.
Sorry child, the clown competition is only for those over 18-years-old.
Try again in 6-7 years….
Most of the cost of getting anything to space is getting out of the Earth’s gravity well.
I see little point in getting out of one gravity well and then dropping down another. Instead of going to the moon and Mars, why not go to asteroids such as Ryugu?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayabusa2
All the metals, organics and water you need in one zero-g package.
Entropic man
60 years ago, as JFK started the stuff, the ‘little point’ was to tell the ‘others’: “You will never beat us, we are the very best ones”.
Since then, nothing has changed.
It is not simply an ‘out of gravity’ probelm.
Bindidon
You are thinking “No bucks, no Buck Rogers” and the bucks come from governments scoring political points off each other using projects like Apollo.
That model is obsolete. If we are to get into space and stay there it would need to be done like the colonisation of North America.
Remember that the first Viginia colonony at Jamestown was founded in 1607 by the London Company to export materials like timber and tobacco back to Europe.
The space equivalent would be metals from asteroid mining, and possibly 3Helium from the lunar surface.
The major cost of taking anything to space is the ∆V of getting up to 12km/second and escaping Earth orbit.
Once you’ve done that, the ∆V to reach anywhere in the solar system is much lower, especially if you stay out out of gravity wells.
Like an early American colony, space infrastructure is much more viable if it can be self-supporting, using space based sources for resources. This implies the development of a space-based economy with space-based companies, colonies, scientists and mines selling to each other.
–Entropic man says:
July 20, 2019 at 1:31 PM
Bindidon
You are thinking No bucks, no Buck Rogers and the bucks come from governments scoring political points off each other using projects like Apollo.
That model is obsolete. If we are to get into space and stay there it would need to be done like the colonisation of North America.
Remember that the first Viginia colonony at Jamestown was founded in 1607 by the London Company to export materials like timber and tobacco back to Europe.
The space equivalent would be metals from asteroid mining, and possibly 3Helium from the lunar surface.–
Mostly correct, but if mine 3Helium you get more normal helium and get more Hydrogen {and other stuff}. The hydrogen is worth more than the 3Helium.
Hydrogen is worth more because there isn’t a limited demand for 3Helium.
Lunar dirt has more demand on Earth than 3Helium, Shipping lunar dirt to earth is more valuable because there is more demand for Lunar dirt. Or you could sell 100 tons of lunar dirt for more money than 3Helium.
Lunar dirt and 3Helium they high price due to rarer and both have significant potential uses.
Lunar dirt can’t be made on Earth, 3Helium can be obtained on Earth but it expensive. But if there enough demand for 3Helium one could probably produce it cheaper on Earth.
It’s interesting that diamonds can make cheaper on Earth, but people still demand the more expensive “natural diamonds”.
With lunar dirt, if you spend enough effort [money] one might be able to make fake lunar dirt which was very similar, or exactly similar to one particular “type” of lunar dirt- say kind of lunar dirt found in some crater, say Armstrong crater. So very very similar to lunar dirt found within and near Armstrong crater. Or no one can say with high degree of certainty that the fake lunar dirt is not from Armstrong crater.
–The major cost of taking anything to space is the ∆V of getting up to 12km/second and escaping Earth orbit.–
No, it’s the lack of demand for payloads escaping Earth orbit.
Or what is stopping us from having cost to LEO be about $100 per kg, when the moment it’s at about $1800 per kg.
Not enough time and market demand.
If payload costs $100 per kg to LEO, than you would be correct- a major cost is ∆V and major part of that cost is price of rocket fuel [which currently less than $1 per kg- and has been this price for many decades and is fairly inflexible price over time and O2 has a large market- rocket use is not a large part of the market].
Delta-v is problem for getting Space Power satellites to GEO, but from the Moon [or high orbit material gotten from Space rock] the delta-v is not a problem. The problem of space rocks and Moon is there is currently near zero market.
The advantage of Moon vs Space rock is the Moon could become a destination. And space rock destination is essential an unfavorable destination that requires sending stuff from it to a more desirable destination. Many imagine such destination could be LEO or Earth surface, but I would say, more desirable destination would be high Earth orbit and Mars high orbit [in near term] Venus and Mercury high orbit, later.
Regarding the Moon. From lunar surface you want to ship water and or rocket fuel to Low Lunar orbit, this about 1.7 km/sec delta-v.
So one sell rocket fuel at lunar surface, because someone might want to go that location of lunar surface. Or they might spend for rocket and have shipped some other location on lunar surface. If at same pole [North or South] one can ship suborbital, or costing less than 1 km/sec. Of course at later point one could also have roads or tracks to various places. But suborbital probably easiest and fastest if dealing a few tons rather than tens or hundreds of tons.
So other on lunar surface, the main destination the Moon is shipping to is Low lunar orbit.
And one have difference transportation system [such as using ion rocket engines, to deliver to the rest of Earth high orbit, and Mars].
Until such time as one can do Space power satellite, then you have Moon main transportation destination being a direct path to GEO from the Moon, though having such things as Ion tugs doing docking type stuff at GEO.
Some people think one could land things on Moon and then go to Mars. Only reason I could see why do that is if had Nuclear Orions
doing fast travel between Moon and Mars..
Otherwise if using ion engines one goes high Earth to high Mars, if using high thrust rockets [chemical rockets] you go from High Earth to low perigee and burn, and go to Mars high orbit which also can burn at when near Mars. You could burn near Mars and end up at Mars surface surface, or low Mars orbit, or high Mars orbit.
Gbaikie
3Helium is fuel for a nuclear fusion reactor.
Very hard to find on Earth, but the lunar surface traps it from the solar wind. When we get commercial fusion going 3He becomes valuable enough to bring back from the Moon.
Remember that the transport cost means that only very high value cargo is worth bringing back. Gold would not be worth shipping.
Forget Lunar rock. All that makes it valuable is its rarity value. We have a limited amount brought back by Apollo missions and no prospect of getting more soon. Once returned in quantity it would be dirt cheap.
∆V from the Moon to Earth orbit is 2.3km/second. From a NEO such as Ryugu you could get rare earth metals back to Earth for a tenth of that.
Entropic man
“3Helium is fuel for a nuclear fusion reactor.”
Aha. Really?
Not one of the existing fusion projects would actually be able to work other than using the DT-mix (deuterium + tritium), and you talk here about a He-based fusion?
Are you aware of the energy needed to get such fusion working??
C’mon EM! Keep on Earth.
–Entropic man says:
July 20, 2019 at 3:50 PM
Gbaikie
3Helium is fuel for a nuclear fusion reactor.
Very hard to find on Earth, but the lunar surface traps it from the solar wind. When we get commercial fusion going 3He becomes valuable enough to bring back from the Moon.–
A key aspect is when we get commercial fusion going.
And when we get commercial fusion that will use 3He
{use it because it makes some kind of commercial sense
or adds value and that value does include the benefits that
people are fond of [longer lasting reactor, less radiation, etc].
Or this unlikely within 20 years and in terms of now, one can’t have
such a business model. Rather it’s more of something one might keep in mind and look for updates.
But this all this not the main problem.
“Current US industrial consumption of helium-3 is approximately 60,000 liters (approximately 8 kg) per year; cost at auction has typically been approximately $100/liter although increasing demand has raised prices to as much as $2,000/liter in recent years. Helium-3 is naturally present in small quantities due to radioactive decay, but virtually all helium-3 used in industry is manufactured.”
https://ktwop.com/2014/08/16/its-coming-but-dont-invest-just-yet-in-mining-helium-3-on-the-moon/
And this someone pro 3He lunar mining. Another quote:
“The moon contains 1 – 2 million tonnes of 3He in its topsoil.”
Well, the Moon contain about 2 billion tonnes of H2 in top 1 meter of it’s “topsoil”.
I would say at the moment this Hydrogen is not mineable and I think hydrogen worth about 4000 per kg on the lunar surface.
Or 4 million dollar per ton. But I would NOT say 2 billion tonnes times 4 million dollar indicates Lunar H2 is worth 8 x 10^15 dollars: 8000 trillion dollars.
But I would say the first 1000 tons of H2 mined might worth as much as 4 billion dollars, And when mine 1000 tons of H2, one could be 1 ton of he3. Now if I could deliver 1 ton of He3 to Earth can I get 4 billion or more dollars for it?
Or the consumption rate in US of 8 kg, 1000 kg is 100 year supply.
I could stop all US production of He3, because I want to sell as much as possible. I want money, I am not interested in storing it, I will sell it to anyone who in the business of having/storing He3, so I might sell 1000 tons to various parties for say $50 per liter. Or around 8 kg per was selling at $100 per liter, maybe these people are expecting higher demand, and will make lots of money. And if sell it cheap, it’s possible I will encourage more demand of He3.
Likewise, 1000 tons of Hydrogen is a lot sell. So might sell 1000 tons to someone you pay me $2000 per kg, 2 million per ton and totals 2 billion dollars.
Of course next few years I would like to sell more of it.
So backtrack: a liter of helium is 0.176
And 4.003 atomic mass units
“Because of its low atomic mass of 3.02 atomic mass units, helium-3 ”
So that’s per liter around .132 grams per liter.
I said $50 per .132 grams
And 7.575 times $50 equals is $378.77 per gram
And $378,787,878.79 per ton.
And since looking at how volume is 1 ton of He3 {at 1 atm]
It takes 7.575 liters to equal a gram:
7.575 million liters is a ton of it
Or 1000 liters is cubic meter
So 7575 cubic meters, though obviously it can be compressed
but it can’t be liquified, I don’t think I would attempt liquify or freeze it.
Let’s pick something handy: 2 meter diameter and 5 meter long
3.1415 times 5 = 8.14 cubic meter
Now have to do burst pressures: 2 meter equals 78.74 inches
1/4″ walls at 80,000 psi burst yield strength: 500 psi
It seems the tank weight going exceed the gas weight.
One look at in terms of scuba tanks:
The approximate weight of air is 0.073 lbs/cu.ft. So the air in our Steel 80 cu.ft. tank would have about 5.9 pounds (80 x 0.073 = 5.9 lbs). When the tank is completely empty how much does it weight? Well if it weighs 13.2 pounds full of air then it would weigh about 7.3 pounds when it is empty (13.2 lbs – 5.9 lbs = 7.3 lbs).”
And course air is denser than helium, so with scuba tank [very high pressure] not just same but probably twice mass of the helium.
So that problem I never heard anyone mention before- to deliver 1 ton of He3 it’s going to require a lot tankage.
Again, I don’t think Hydrogen is mineable and it’s more valuable the He3.
But if mine lunar water after a decade or two [or after +20,000 tons of water has been mined] the cost to get to the Moon will lower and H2 mining in terms 1000 tons per year, should be mineable. But mining lunar water will give some amounts of H2 and 1/1000th of the hydrogen would be He-3, so in 10 year period one get about 100 kg of He-3, or per year one could double US He-3 production, and lower price of he-3 [but not by a lot].
But when mining 1000 tons of H2 on Moon, you lower He-3 prices on Earth by a lot.
Entropic man
“The space equivalent would be metals from asteroid mining, and possibly 3Helium from the lunar surface.”
I understand what you mean.
But the amount of metal lying at Earth’s oceanic bottoms are really huge in comparison to what we ever could mine on the Moon, things like 3He excepted.
Bindidon
The current generation of tokomaks fuse deuterium and tritium to form a helium nucleus and a neutron. These “fast neutrons” waste a lot of energy, damage the machine and make it radioactive.
If you replace tritium with 3He you get a fusion reaction which produces helium and protons. Protons are aesier to absorb than fast neutrons, causing much less dammage and no radioactivity. The reaction also releases more energy.
3He reactors are better, if you can get the fuel.
Deep sea mining would be nearly as expensive as space mining, and no more proven. Nobody has actually done it. Remember that the Glomar Explorer, which was supposed to mine manganese nodules, was actually cover for a CIA attempt to salvage a Russian submarine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer
Entropic man
“If you replace tritium with 3He you get a fusion reaction which produces helium and protons.”
Again: I understand what you mean.
It is clear that D+T generates a neutron with over 14 MeV.
Tritium is a problem anyway, as unlike Deuterium, it does not exist in natural form and therefore must be breeded in blankets of Lithium and Beryllium.
But what you seem to underestimate when going out of D+T is the Lawson criterium: you have to overcome a much higher Coulomb force, what results in
– a much higher plasma temperature
together with
– a longer plasma confinement time.
And actually, we still can’t manage to get it right with D+T!
From D+3He or even 3He+3He we are much farer away.
Dilbert tries to explain reality to a clown.
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-07-21
Yep, they definitely read whatever they want to see, not what is actually written.
That Dilbert cartoon is far more descriptive of you two than anyone else on this blog.
You will not do an experiment to save your lives. It will prove that both of you are completely wrong (which is why you won’t do it). Others have done experiments that prove your ideas are not valid. It does not change either of you.
Bindidon does excellent research to show the two of you are a diaper full of it but it does not register in your dim minds.
The correct application for this cartoon is for the two of you boneheaded morons.
The latest debunk of the “plates” nonsense was so simple, clear and straightforward that anyone could understand, and that seems to have really rattled them:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-365475
Couple that with the trivial annihilation of the whole “moon” fiasco that has once again effortlessly taken place, and you’ve got some disgruntled argument-losers on the rampage.
DREMT
Only you have lost the argument. You are too dumb to understand valid science so you accept the simplistic drools of JDHuffman as if you were some Master of All (he is only Master of making stuff up and pretending he knows what he is talking about. He does not grasp entropy at all just throws it around to pretend to be smart to simple minds like you that lick the drool from his chin with great delight).
You can walk around a circular table if you want to see that you must rotate on your axis if you want the same side of your body to face the table. Look at your feet as they move around. I usually have to use square tables for slow simpletons like you. You are not smart enough to understand simultaneous motions. So with you, walk around a square table. When you reach the corner see if you can move around the table with no rotation. If you can accomplish this let me know how you do it.
You are too simple minded to do an experiment that demonstrates you hero, JDHUffman, is not as smart as you think he is. In reality he is very stupid but you seem to blindly follow his nonsense, that is your own fault.
The “walking round the table” argument is one of your funniest. More, please!
Norman has returned to compete in the clown competition.
The competition is tough, but Norman has a big advantage….
norman…”You can walk around a circular table if you want to see that you must rotate on your axis if you want the same side of your body to face the table”.
Norman…when you walk around a circular table your axis (COG) is always orbiting the table in it’s own orbit. Each particle in your body is orbiting the table in its own orbit. The particles can never cross paths which is a requirement of rotation about an axis.
“The latest debunk of the ‘plates'”
Hilarious.
It doesnt matter what actually happened in a discussion, the dimwit-troll DREMT will lie and call it a ‘debunking’, no matter what.
As here, where the discussion ended with DREMT unable and unwilling to back up his claims with any FACTS.
DREMT was completely unable to find any evidence supporting his claim that Q MUST tend to ZERO, which he bases his ‘debunking’ on.
He was completely unable to identify his ‘mystery energy’ that flows without a temperature gradient between the plates.
He was completely unable to explain his assertion that the correct solution violates 1LOT.
In short, he has debunked his own claims.
Nate, it’s not your fault that you don’t understand 2LoT. But what’s funny is that you believe you do.
Nothing new.
Non sequitur. Non fact.
Norman is always rambling about “experiments”. But, he is the clown that wouldn’t do the simple experiment with the toy ($20) Ferris wheel. Or, the even cheaper one with a string and an orange.
And, if you do an experiment for him, he denies reality, as here:
Current overhead clear sky –> 7.5 F
Ground –> 79.9 F
As usual, the heat transfer is from “hot” to “cold”, not the other way around. The GHE is bogus.
Norman’s whole argument with the table, is basically that as the moon changes direction wrt the “fixed stars”, it must be rotating on its own axis. This is basically the argument that they all always come back to.
…and that was already settled here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791
If the clowns were able to think for themselves, Norman’s “walking around the table” would disprove their nonsense.
Norman could walk to the north side of the table. Then, simple spin in place. Someone could see ALL sides of him, from all 4 directions. When he is walking around the table, one side is always facing the table. He is “changing directions”, not “rotating on his axis”.
During an orbit, ANY axial rotation would be observable, from BOTH inside and outside the orbit.
The clowns are simply unable to learn.
‘and that was already settled here:’
Nope. More misrepresentation.
That argument has been rebutted by several people.
Point is in the very same book, it says general motion of an object can be described as a combination of rotation on its axis plus translation of the cm.
That means if motion is not simply a rotation, or simply a translation, it must be described as a combo.
The Moon is NOT simply a rotation like in Fig 2b. The Moon travels in an elliptical orbit, not attached to an arm of fixed length.
The Moon speeds up and slows down in its travels around the Earth, unlike fig 2b.
While the Moons rotation wrt the stars does not speed up and slow down as it orbits.
The Moons rotational axis is tilted at 6 degrees to its orbital axis, which points to a fixed location among the stars, unlike fig 2b where the axis is simply out of the page.
That rotational axis defines the Moons North and South poles, which otherwise could not be defined.
All of these differences from fig 2b causes us to see slightly different faces of the Moon.
And Newton’s description of the Moons motion 350 y ago in terms of a rotating and orbiting Moon, explained all of these effects, that Fig 2b cannot.
Nate, all that disjointed rambling still can’t match the simple racehorse.
You are welcome to keep trying.
Either the moon is spinning or Proxima Centauri is exceeding the speed of light.
Pick the simpler one.
bob, look up “false dichotomy”.
JD,
Why, don’t you know what it means?
nate…”The Moon is NOT simply a rotation like in Fig 2b. The Moon travels in an elliptical orbit, not attached to an arm of fixed length”.
It might as well be, the Moon is held in orbit by Earth’s gravitational field. The Same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, meaning gravity acts on both sides of the face equally.
Gravity is the only influential force acting on the Moon. If it acts equally on either side of the only face it ever sees, it means the face is LOCKED in that position.
IT CANNOT TURN ABOUT ITS OWN AXIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why are you guys so obtuse that you fail to see that?
The Moon might as well be attached to an arm from the Earth’s centre, that’s how it behaves in its orbit.
Gordon Robertson
I am sad for you. You are as dumb as the two nitwits who torment the rational minds on this blog. Why do you false skeptics (those out to make logical skeptics look stupid by association with the likes of your type) have to work to destroy the credibility of rational skeptics?
Come on, Norman…instead of empty insults, how about making an argument against what he’s saying? Or against what gbaikie is explaining, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359222
DREMT
YOU: “Normans whole argument with the table, is basically that as the moon changes direction wrt the fixed stars, it must be rotating on its own axis. This is basically the argument that they all always come back to.”
NO that is not at all what my argument is! I chose for you a square table to walk around since you are a simpleton.
Walk to the edge of a square table (would be the same for a circular table but then you have to rotate continuously and you are not smart enough to understand this). When you reach one edge of the table you need to walk another step to clear it. Now to keep the same side of your body toward the table what must you do? It is really really simple. I was hoping even with your simpleton thought process you could grasp it. Sorry I gave you too much credit. I guess you are not even that smart to figure it out.
The answer would be you need to rotate your body one quarter turn (look at your feet). You are doing the exact process the ever goofy and illogical JDHuffman spoke about above. If you stood there and did not walk you would rotate your body ON ITS AXIS one quarter turn. Then if you keep walking to the next edge you must turn your body on its axis one more quarter turn. To go one time around the table you must rotate one time. The exact same as if you stood in place and rotated once on your axis.
I am not expecting much from you. I am predicting with near certainty this little test you could do today will be beyond your level of reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ExFAU2los
This is the one your idiot friend could not understand.
“The answer would be you need to rotate your body one quarter turn (look at your feet)”
…and, exactly as I said, your argument can be summarized:
“…that as the moon changes direction wrt the fixed stars, it must be rotating on its own axis.”
You are noting that I have to turn at the corner of the table. In other words, I would be “changing direction wrt to the “fixed stars” (or I guess, “fixed table” in your scenario). And you believe that proves axial rotation.
My summary of your argument was spot on. As usual.
‘ disjointed rambling ‘
= JD has no answers, again.
= JD can’t follow simple facts and logic, again.
G:.
“The Moon might as well be attached to an arm from the Earths centre, thats how it behaves in its orbit.”
You guys would LIKE it to be that simple, but all the facts I listed above show that it cannot be.
These two facts, for example:
“The Moon speeds up and slows down in its travels around the Earth, unlike fig 2b.”
due to its elliptical orbit
“While the Moons rotation wrt the stars does not speed up and slow down as it orbits.”
show that the Moons rotation on its on axis is effectively DECOUPLED from its orbital motion.
They are two independent motions.
Sorry, nature is not matching your beliefs. Get over it.
That’s a good illustration Norman. To extend it a bit you can first imagine a table with 4 sides where you have 4 rotations of 90 degrees. Then imagine 8 sided table with 8 rotations of 45 degrees, a 360 sided table with 360 rotations of 1 degree, and so on. Keep making the table more circular by imagining a table with more sides requiring more frequently rotations through smaller angles. No matter how many sides your table has and how close it approximates a circle you are still rotating your body. And if you let the limit of the number sides approach infinity to make a circular table you are still rotating.
Sure, bdgwx…and it’s still ultimately the same argument.
You view any change of direction that the moon makes, in its orbit, relative to the fixed stars, as axial rotation. Kind of like how a robot would see it.
Norman gets tricked by computer graphics!
He’s so easy to fool.
This is what the Moon looks like from Earth during its orbit:
https://youtu.be/xmQ8r_dL9wg
Not simple rotation. Any arm attached would have to be able to twist and stretch an awful lot!
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Your argument is “their argument is stupid.”
Not very convincing.
YOU are not very convincing.
Then I’ll have to quote the HUMPTY DREMPTY for you.
“They dont seem to realize how stupid their argument is.”
Your argument is “their argument is stupid.”
Not very honest, are you?
Fortunately, people can read through all the comments.
HUMPTHY DREMPTHY,
You say
“Fortunately, people can read through all the comments.”
Yes they can and they will note that I quoted you verbatim.
Remember, they also can see that I proved that the 244, 244, 244 solution to the 3 plate problem is false.
And most people understand that the moon rotates on it’s own axis.
You partially quoted one comment, blob.
As they will be able to read when they start here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791
and read through, ignoring the attempts from the usual suspects to try to change the subject.
I leave it to others to draw their own conclusions.
Or from here, I should say:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-365475
Though why not start from earlier!?
Yeah, anyone can start from there or anywhere else and see who is smokin crack and who isn’t.
Agreed.
–Entropic man says:
July 20, 2019 at 3:50 PM
Gbaikie
3Helium is fuel for a nuclear fusion reactor.
Very hard to find on Earth, but the lunar surface traps it from the solar wind. When we get commercial fusion going 3He becomes valuable enough to bring back from the Moon.
Remember that the transport cost means that only very high value cargo is worth bringing back. Gold would not be worth shipping.–
I will try to make this a simple and short as I can.
If Moon has rocket fuel, you can do a lot things on the Moon.
Gold about $50 per gram, if moon has rocket fuel, you can ship something worth $50 per gram to Earth.
It depends upon the price of lunar rocket fuel, and lunar rocket fuel has to be a lower enough price for the Moon to have rocket fuel.
And lunar rocket at $1000 per kg [or $1 million per gram]
is low enough.
The main problem with high price of He-3 on Earth is that the He-3 market is small and controlled [or was controlled by US government]. If big enough market demand, it will lower in price- people will find cheaper way to make it.
Also He3 on Moon is same He3 on space rocks [assuming not bare rock, space rock. And so Mars moons will have He-3, and they are easy to get to.
–Forget Lunar rock. All that makes it valuable is its rarity value. We have a limited amount brought back by Apollo missions and no prospect of getting more soon. Once returned in quantity it would be dirt cheap.–
There no advantage to having expensive Lunar dirt, it would good to have low price and available to anyone.
So if the Moon has rocket fuel, lunar dirt on Earth will related to cost of lunar rocket fuel. If Lunar rocket fuel is about $1000 per kg, then lunar dirt could be bought at price less than $50 per gram.
–∆V from the Moon to Earth orbit is 2.3km/second. From a NEO such as Ryugu you could get rare earth metals back to Earth for a tenth of that.–
If you have rocket fuel in Earth orbit, say $1000 per kg at LEO and 2000 per kg in higher Earth orbits. The cost of delta-v will be cheaper, and since space craft could worth tens of millions of dollars, the time used by spacecraft could important factor of costs.
The spacecraft can re-fueled and reused [rather discarded after one use]. So Ryugu apparently takes long time to get to- longer to get to, than moons of Mars.
If space rocks have rocket fuel at them, it doesn’t make much difference, whereas it make a big difference if lunar surface has rocket fuel.
Btw one buy created Simulant of various bodies in space:
https://sciences.ucf.edu/class/planetary-simulant-database/
And there problems with them, because any of them are only similar
to the real thing in certain respects.
So, could be they could adequate for whatever purpose one needs for.
But the real thing of particular place you want to test for, would obviously be better.
Don’t buy them, but one apparent buy a type of Mars Simulant for about $20 per kg. And if buying by the ton, probably could buy cheaper.
So if we ever got to point where the real stuff is only twice as much as the Simulant, that would better than not being able to buy it. But this probably not going to happen within the next 100 years.
aargh:
“And lunar rocket at $1000 per kg [or $1 million per gram]”
$1 per gram
What other stuff? I don’t see anything, Other post:
“So, could be they could adequate for whatever purpose one needs for.”
So, they could be adequate for whatever purpose one needs them for.
Well, here the big thing is $1000 per kg for rocket is high price one gets in beginning years, and very roughly I should expect
a halving of price per decade, and increase in yearly production
to increase by 5 or more per decade.
So can start by mining less than 100 tons of water per year, you going to have problems which delay production until such time as work thru potential gitches/mistakes. Or try to start at 1000 tons per year, it ended costing more as compare a goal of 100 tons, and next doing 200 or 400 tons per year.
But roughly you need about 1000 tons of water per year, but you get to that level within few years {1/2 decade}.
And of course it possible you don’t need to ramp up this fast, I am talking of general idea/plan and without anywhere near enough information of what the mining conditions are.
One thing about mining water, is you can cheaply store a lot it, which is unlike rocket fuel- which tanks to hold it, and product is more valuable to have “sitting on the shelf”.
Oh, just thought something, lunar water could sort of act like reserve gold bullion- or “money in the bank”. But anyhow, if get lot water mined, you focus other types of mining, and/or use “earthmoving” equipment to do other things, roads, covering living space with rad shielding, etc.
“But roughly you need about 1000 tons of water per year, but you get to that level within few years {1/2 decade}.”
Now I used to think mining space rocks would be the first step.
Or first mine space rocks, and later have lunar mining and Mars settlements.
Now, I think maybe you start with the Moon- IF the Moon has minable water.
One aspect of why changed my mind is connected to idea, of what or where can mine the least amount of water per year, in the beginning years {and beginning year are critical in in terms investment dollars- or venture capitalist tend to want to have option selling their market share within 3 to 5 years. Or it has to be worth something within 3 to 5 years. Or if you make money in less then 3 years- that is good investment for venture capitalists. Other investors are looking long term [retirement money, hedging inflation, hedging various risk, etc].
And I think the Moon can mine the least amount water within the first 3 to 5 years.
Or ask you how much water do you have sell from space rock within the first 5 years?
And Mars has different model. Generally it’s longer term.
It’s inherently longer term because involves real estate, living, forming towns, forming governments, etc. Less venture capitialist stuff, more of the “normal investment” [and in terms size of money, involved, huge amounts}.
With mars it doesn’t have to do with how water one can mine per year, rather it’s how water is there someplace to mine and how cheap would it be. So real estate is access to water well which draw lots of water from, or numerous well within large region.
And you want billion of tonnes of water in a region.
And a billion tons of water in the ground is worth about 1 billion dollars. And 10 billion tons, might be worth more than 10 billion dollars. And million tons, might not be worth anything.
But generally best spot on Mars has low cost getting liquid water and a largest reservoir this available, known on Mars.
Example on Earth:
“The northern Sahara aquifer system extends across an area nearly double that of mainland France and is thought to hold more than 30,000 cubic kilometers of water accumulated during wet periods that occurred over the last 1 million years.”
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3102/20130722/vast-fossil-aquifer-beneath-sahara-desert-slowly-refilling.htm
So 30 trillion tons of water, would great on Mars, but a smaller region and tens of billions.
gbaikie
Are you really sober when you write such things?
It’s about 1,000,000 times cheaper to breed it in fast neutron-based breeding 4G nuclear plants!
Oh noes…
You talking about lunar He-3?
He-3 has many uses other than nuclear power.
I think selling lunar dirt to Earth is far more significant
than selling He-3 to Earth.
I think nuclear energy is important. It’s not problem for me if we reduce CO2 emission. And making more nuclear energy and making more hydro dam is only way to change CO2 emission.
Well, more use of natural gas is important also, but if want zero CO2 emissions- which is fanatical, but the fanatics want to come to the table, then, more Nuclear and Hydro seems like the deal.
I course I am be fan of solar energy, but I think should done where it’s currently the most viable source of electrical power- satellites in Earth orbit.
That was what solar panels were made to do, and they doing it.
No governmental subsidies needed, the only real choice for powering satellites to beam communication signals to earth, is solar power.
Related is server centers which consuming lots of electrical power,
I wouldn’t mind a government subsidy which kick starts server center in Earth orbit- and of course, they are powered by solar energy.
Dear Dr. Spencer,
Thanks for this article which I enjoyed very much.
So much in fact, that I have taken the liberty of translating it into Dutch and posting it on our foundation’s website http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl (in Dutch). Obviously with a reference to and acknowledgment of the source.
I that allright with you?
Thanks
Cyril
Cyril…Roy does not often respond this far into the posts of an article. If he does not see your post and reply, perhaps you could try contacting him directly at the email address he supplies on this site?
Something I scribbled down last nite.
{ asking questions to myself- long rambling }:
Moon vs Mars
I say, to make Moon a destination it needs cheap rocket fuel
To make Mars a destination, does it need cheap rocket fuel?
What is the difference, why Moon but not Mars?
Said differently, since Moon might have mineable water
and if it has mineable water, it make the Moon a near term destination.
My beginning or very early premise, space environment needs something valuable.
Rocket fuel could be valuable.
Perhaps, highest price of rocket fuel [highest value] is Earth high orbit.
Though highest price one would pay at present time is lunar surface or Mars surface.
Cheap rocket fuel in earth high orbit is $1000 per kg
Current fair price of rocket fuel in high orbit is about $8000 to $10,000 per kg
Current fair price of rocket fuel in low earth orbit is about $4000 per kg.
Perhaps, a bad example, but Falcon 9 lifts 22,800 kg to LEO
And 8,300 kg to GTO {GTO could be said to be start/beginning of high earth orbit}
22,800 / 8,300 = 2.74
10000 / 4000 = 2.5
Or if paid $4000 per kg for 22,800 kg payload: $4000 times 22800 = 91.2 million dollars
If paid $10000 per kg for 8,300 kg to GTO, $10000 x 8300 kg = 83 million dollars
SpaceX say Falcon-9 launch cost about + 60 million dollars
and:
“The heaviest payload launched to a LEO was a batch of 60 Starlink satellites weighing a total 16,800 kg (37,000 lb) to a 440-kilometre (270 mi) orbit.
The heaviest payload launched to a GTO was Intelsat 35e with 6,761 kg (14,905 lb).”
So, LEO 16,800 kg times 4000 is 67 million. Price was around 60 million dollars
6,761 kg times 10000 is 67 million.
We also assume price was around 60 million.
Cost difference to SpaceX if payload heavier would amount extra fuel added to rocket [far less than 1 million dollars]
And satellite maker wanting max lift from Falcon-9 probably faces higher risk of failure. Or rated this high but has not
actually lift the max payload, yet. Or SpaceX for slight cost of rocket fuel may think it’s worth charging the same amount:
about 60 million, because if lifts successful that payload, it helps proves the rocket can successful lift this much-
better for the business.
So SpaceX wants the biggest payload and SpaceX also likes lifting smaller payload because that allows it to reused it’s first stage rocket, but a Falcon-9 launch is a basically going to cost about 60 million whether it’s smaller or a larger payload.
And for the smaller payload, SpaceX is probably cheaper than any other rocket.
Now falcon heavy lifts payload at cheaper price per kg, but Falcon-9 rocket is proven rocket.
Or there is no safer rocket launch than Falcon-9. If Heavy is launched 5 to 10 more times, then it is similar.
Back to the rambling:
Current fair price of rocket fuel in high orbit is about $8000 to $10,000 per kg
Current fair price of rocket fuel in low earth orbit is about $4000 per kg.
Current fair price of rocket fuel on lunar surface is +$20,000 per kg
Current fair price of rocket fuel on mars surface is +$20,000 per kg
If you buying a total of +100 tons of rocket fuel in any of above I would expect to be able to get a 25% lower price
Or high earth orbit $7500 per kg vs $10,000 kg.
Or if payload is cheap, such LOX:
10,000 kg of LOX cost is about $1000, and container for it could cost more than $1000.
Then lower monetary loss if rocket fails to launch.
And LOX is dense compared Liquid Hydrogen
LH2: 70.8 kg cubic meter
LOX: 1141 kg
And not getting into tankage part, but per mass of LH2, there significant fraction weight of the container.
Oh, also when I say rocket fuel I mostly mean LOX or some another oxider. Or I suppose mono fuel/monopropellant. All fairly dense.
So I think if lunar rocket fuel at lunar surface was about $1000 per kg, it makes moon a destination.
But I don’t think Mars rocket fuel was about $1000 per kg, that makes Mars a destination.
But I think if could mine space rocks and sell water at high earth orbit at $1000 per kg that makes space rock in near term, viable or valuable or a destination.
Normally, what I think is, that if Mars water was about $10 per kg, that makes Mars a destination.
With Moon the water would about $500 per kg.
If Mars water was $10 per kg, can Mars rocket fuel be $1000 per kg. And if it was, does it matter much?
If Mars electrical power was $100 per kw hour {or less}, and water about $10 per kg then should able to sell rocket fuel for $1000 per kg {or less}.
“According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average U.S. residential customer uses approximately
909 kWh per month of energy, or 10,909 kWh per year.”
And wiki says:
List of countries by population in 2016
US: 12,071 Kw hour per year
China: 4,475 KW hour per year
Canada: 14,930 KW hour per year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
So Martian probably going to use about 10,000 Kw hour per year,
Times 100 means they pay million dollar per year for electrical power.
And at that price, they might try to use 50% or less in mad energy efficiency effort.
In terms of water use, 100 to 300 gallon a day, in kg: 3.785 per gallon:
378.5 kg to 1135 kg. Times by 365 days: 138,152 to 414,457 kg per year.
So, if water costs $10 per kg, it cost more than electrical power cost per year.
Can Martians expect to pay a lot less for water and/or electrical power??
And if you pick one of either which would better if it was 1/10th the cost?
I would tend to pick water to be 1/10th the costs.
As the planet Mars might have a “natural resource” which allows water to 1/10th the cost, whereas hard to see how Mars the planet has natural resources which “allows” electrical cost to be 1/10th the cost.
Or that would depend upon human abilities {perhaps magical abilities}.
But if water was $1 or $10 per kg and $100 per kw hour, one could have rocket fuel be less than $1000 per kg.
Though Mars soil could/may have “rocket fuel in it”, and so
Mars natural resource could allow even cheaper rocket fuel.
But even if Mars rocket fuel was say $100 per kg, I don’t think makes much of difference.
What seems important is price of water and price of electricity.
Though price of Oxygen and/or chemical energy, would matter.
Now, as said before, the significant of lunar mining water, is it starts electrical market in space.
And I think solar energy could provide electrical power at about $75 per kw hour, and given a couple decade, competition and large electrical demand could lower electrical price to about $10 per Kw hour, and in several decade lower electrical power to about
$1 per Kw hour.
When electrical power cost about $10 per kw hours, lunar water and rocket fuel might be about $100 per kg, and one doing things like mining Hydrogen and He and makimg metals and getting oxygen from this process. {oxygen could become more of byproduct [even waste product, rather primary stuff which is valuable}
And so say making 10,000 tons of iron per year, mining 1000 tons of H2, And say 100 tons of pure silicon per year.
And when electrical power is around $1 per Kw hour, one might be largely lifting payloads not using chemical rocket power, various mass drivers or mag lev type things. Or rail guns or
cannon type things.
And doing space power satellites- and might stating doing them for Mars.
Or if martian are paying more than $1 per kw hour, and if Earthling paying about $.1 per Kw hour, Mars would pay more for the electrical power, and one could more easily to get the power
to Martian surface as compare to Earth surface.
Or even though get 1/2 as much solar energy at Mars distance, you might get paid more than four times per Kw hour compared Earth.
So say the Mars has 100,000 population. If provide cheaper power, more people might go to Mars, and more people traveling to Mars could mean more lunar business, other than this electrical power.
Though before even completing Mars Space power satellites, Earth Space power satellite could be started. And further down the road, Mars ends paying about twice as much for electrical power
as Earthlings do.
Though it’s also possible or even more likely, that mining space rocks is more connected with making space power satellites for Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury, etc.
My main point is the Moon starts things. And Moon is like Hong Kong of Earth. Moon is gateway to solar system {and to stars].
gbaikie…”What is the difference, why Moon but not Mars?”
Seems to me an objective of NASA is to find evidence of life in the universe. Much better chance on Mars than on the Moon.
–Seems to me an objective of NASA is to find evidence of life in the universe. Much better chance on Mars than on the Moon.–
Some think there might be rock varnish on Mars.
“…Other minerals mixed into varnish composition include hydroxides plus silica and calcium carbonate. These ingredients are cemented to the rock surface by living bacteria. The bacteria reside within and beneath the microscopic layers of varnish, and are usually absent from the exposed surfaces. Exactly how rock varnish is formed is not completely known, but one theory is that varnish formation is a means by which these microbes protect themselves in their exposed, extreme environments. Manganese oxides in rock varnish block the transmission of ultraviolet radiation. Could the rock-dwelling bacteria be simply be creating their own effective sunscreen?”
https://www.eduscapes.com/nature/rocvarnsh/index1.htm
I suppose some think, this is exciting.
–The thing about rock varnishes is the mechanism behind why they form is not clearly understood, Lanza said. Some people believe that rock varnish results from an interaction of small amounts of water from humidity in the air with the surface of rocks a chemical reaction that forms a coating. Others think there could be a biological component to the formation of rock varnishes, such as bacteria or fungi that interact with dust on the rocks and excrete varnish components onto the surface. Lanza is quick to point out that shes making no concrete claim as to the identity or origin of whatever is being seen during the first five shots of each ChemCam sampling. The common signature from the first five blasts could indeed be entirely surface dust, or it could be a rock coating or a rind formed by natural weathering processes.–
https://www.astrobio.net/mars/do-mars-rocks-have-desert-varnish/
If NASA find any life on Mars, I think, they will commonly say that it is not clearly understood.
And same would be said about lint in one’s navel.
I think most people imagine that there is a better chance of finding life on Jupiter’s moons.
Earth’s moon might indicate conditions before life began- could be likely ‘better” than Mars rock varnish.
binny…”“uniformly rotating around its own axis””
The page to which you refer makes it clear that Newton is talking about the libration of the Moon. Why do you cherry pick whatever suits you while ignoring the entire context of the article? A uniform rotation about an axis related to liration would mean the Moon APPEARS to be rotating back and forth on its axis.
It’s an illusion.
If the Moon was rotating about it’s axis, it would not be referred to as ‘uniform’. That would make no sense. Uniform refers to the apparent back and forth motion of libration.
It would be one thing if you had the slightest clue what you are talking about in physics but you are merely appealing to authority with your cherry picks of Newton while failing to understand what was being discussed.
G why is it cherry picking?
Talking about observations, like libration, that can only be explained with the Moon rotating while orbiting, is not cherry picking.
Thats just clear cut evidence against a non-rotating viewpoint.
Why does a non-rotating Moon have a day/night cycle?
Because it’s rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter.
E-man, the non-rotating Moon is illuminated by the Sun, not the Earth.
I don’t really see the point of going to the Moon or to Mars. What would we gain? If it is NASA it would be done very expensively and inefficiently. Wait for the capitalists to do it. Shut NASA down.
Stephen P Anderson
“I dont really see the point of going to the Moon or to Mars.”
I agree.
But
” Shut NASA down.” ?
Would not it be preferable to eliminate the people who command NASA from outside to prepare and implement such nonsense?
Is all job done by NASA nonsense in your eyes?
Most of original moon shot WAS done by industry. All the rocket parts built by different companies.
–Stephen P Anderson says:
July 22, 2019 at 6:00 AM
I don’t really see the point of going to the Moon or to Mars. What would we gain? If it is NASA it would be done very expensively and inefficiently. Wait for the capitalists to do it. Shut NASA down.–
Politically, I think this would be a bad move.
As just a practical matter, what are going to do about ISS.
And as generally matter I think there many other government department or agencies that one could rid of first.
And if you think saving tax dollars- or NASA is expensive. You are misinformed.
If kill NASA, another NASA will form.
It’s possible this would good thing. But in terms saving tax dollar in the near term, there no way this will “save money”. Long term could be different question.
Some have suggested started another agency or governing body which as specific purpose. So, give it a clear direction.
It also gives competition to NASA.
So, though I don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea, but “it could answer question, “what are going to do about ISS”.
So such a body to be charged with “doing something about ISS”
Likewise you have a body charged with task of exploring the Moon, and could be more geared in direction of dealing with Moon in a capitalist fashion/direction.
One also alter direction of “space force” military space which is currently being in process of being formed. That, might actually be interesting.
stephen….”I don’t really see the point of going to the Moon or to Mars. What would we gain? If it is NASA it would be done very expensively and inefficiently. Wait for the capitalists to do it. Shut NASA down.”
I imagine the capitalists would be less inclined, asking what is the point profit-wise of going to the Moon or Mars.
Leave it to the government.
After all, is that not what capitalism is based on…using a socialist-type communal system to generate profit while paying as little as possible to the support workers? That is certainly the corporate mandate.
If you go back a couple of hundred years, that’s exactly what capitalism was about. Don’t get the mistaken idea that Russian communism was an actual communism. It was about a minority, the Bolsheviks, finding almost any excuse to send Russians to concentration camps where they worked them to death making products for free for the Bolsheviks.
Then there are the uber-capitalists, the Imperialists, who raped China for it’s natural resources while justifying their theft by supplying the Chinese with opium.
Robertson
You are at any time ready to confuse, divert from what is clearly stated, with as goal to discredit and denigrate any thought that deviates from your personal, ego-centred narrative. That mental disease sits deep within your brain.
*
1. Look at the fololowing text, found in
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846)
*
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I. Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25½ days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. These things appear by the Phaenomena. The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27½ days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25½ days.
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon’s latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic. This theory of the libration of the moon, Mr. N. Mercator in his Astronomy, published at the beginning of the year 1676, explained more fully out of the letters I sent him.
The utmost satellite of Saturn seems to revolve about its axis with a motion like this of the moon, respecting Saturn continually with the same face; for in its revolution round Saturn, as often as it comes to the eastern part of its orbit, it is scarcely visible, and generally quite disappears; which is like to be occasioned by some spots in that part of its body, which is then turned towards the earth, as M. Cassini has observed.
So also the utmost satellite of Jupiter seems to revolve about its axis with a like motion, because in that part of its body which is turned from Jupiter it has a spot, which always appears as if it were in Jupiter’s own body, whenever the satellite passes between Jupiter and our eye.
*
2. I don’t have the original Latin text exactly fitting to Motte’s translation at hand.
Here is, from the Bayerische Staatsbibilothek, the digitised text of Sir Isaac’s latest edition, page 377 of ‘Liber Tertius’:
https://tinyurl.com/y47u23ay
PROPOSITIO XVII. THEOREMA XVI.
Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, & librationem Lunæ ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.
Patet per motus Legem I, & Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Lib. I. Quoniam verò Lunæ, circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis, dies menstruus est; hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ipsius semper respiciet, & propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviabit hinc inde à Terra. Hæc est libratio in longitudinem. Nam libratio in latitudinem orta est ex inclinatione axis Lunaris ad planum orbis. Porrò hæc ita se habere, ex Phænomenis manifestum est.
I know: you will, as all your friends-in-denial, continue to pretend that I ‘misinterpret’ Sir Isaac.
Feel free to do so. No problem for me!
A more clear Latin text:
Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, & librationem Lunæ ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.
Patet per motus Legem I, & Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Lib. I. Quoniam verò Lunæ, circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis, dies menstruus est; hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ipsius semper respiciet, & propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviabit hinc inde à Terra. Hæc est libratio in longitudinem. Nam libratio in latitudinem orta est ex inclinatione axis Lunaris ad planum orbis. Porrò hæc ita se habere, ex Phænomenis manifestum est.
Duh! When will this very good blog obtain the technical stuff it merits?
Bindidon, how much time have you wasted trying to “prove” what everyone agrees to, that the Moon appears to rotate on its axis, relative to the stars.
The motion is the same as a racehorse on an oval track. The horse is NOT rotating on its axis. Nor is the Moon.
You have been misled by your false religion.
Everyone agrees?!
Wow, thats a 180 degree rotation for you, JD.
Nate, is a racehorse ACTUALLY rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track?
“Yes”, or “No”. One word answer is all that is necessary. No need for irrelevant and rambling obfuscation.
Huffman
You behave as ignorant as usual, but you never will agree upon this.
I don’t mind.
Just a hint.
1. You ONLY consider Newton writing that the Moon appears to rotate on its axis, relative to the stars.
2. You btw DELIBERATELY dissimulate that Newton used the
concept ‘relative to the stars’ not only wrt the Moon, but also wrt the planets:
… Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56…
and even wrt the Sun:
… and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25½ days. …
That is what your simple mind (compared with that of Isaac Newton) can’t grasp.
Newton not only fully understood the overall parallelity of rotation; he understood also that in order to get it right eveywhere, he must take an immuable fixpoint in all places.
*
According to your restricted understanding, neither does the Moon rotate about its axis, nor do the planets, let alone does the Sun.
I anticipate: your next reply will continue in the same direction, exactly as will do your friend-in-deny Robertson with the libration.
This belongs to the basiscs of denial: to never give up.
And you always will speak about some ‘false religion’…
No problem for me, Huffman.
Wrong Bindidon, if a planet or moon is ACTUALY rotating on its axis, it will be obvious from inside its orbit. You STILL can’t understand orbital motion.
Is a racehorse ACTUALLY rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track?
“Yes”, or “No”. One word answer is all that is necessary. No need for irrelevant and rambling obfuscation.
Huffman
Did you already forget my rule?
No Huffman racehorses, no Robdertson coins, no DREMT cannonballs. Only Newton’s words.
And… you still did not manage to understand what he means.
Why? Because for you, your personal meaning is more important than the rest.
I have no personal meaning about Moon’s roation.
Newton’s is clear and succinct enough for us ALL.
“…no DREMT cannonballs…”
You mean…Newton’s cannonball!?
OK, Bindidon. That makes sense. No talk of Newton’s cannonball allowed, only Newton’s words, filtered through the prism of a non-English speaker who only hears what he wants to hear, are allowed.
DREMT
“…filtered through the prism of a non-English speaker who only hears what he wants to hear, are allowed”
Aha.
1. In German and in French, the texts are identical to what I read in English. No difference. Why should there be any?
2. During my schooldays, I had 6 years Latin on a really high level.
And you, DREMT? Do you master Latin?
We already discussed one difference, earlier on.
It’s Newton’s cannonball, Bindidon.
Not mine. Take a look:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
OK?
DREMT
1. Sometimes I have the impression that you view me as a person lacking any ability to discover tiny details:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
2. At the end of wiki’s page, you have a link to the rest of Newton’s whole work, of which this nice cannonball stuff is an absolutely minuscule point.
3. When accessing the m.wiki page, you are redirected to a page which very well refers to lots of Newton’s work about the Moon, but… oh surprise, does not mention anything concerning Prop. XVII Theor. XV.
Strange things happen, don’t they?
Oh, weren’t you talking about filtered somewhere upthread? Hmmmh.
C’mon DREMT, be serious. What the heck does the Moon have in common with shooting a cannonball from Earth?
Did Newton explain us that the cannonball experiment explains Moon’s behavior?
Or didn’t you, DREMT, rather filter Moon’s complex behavior down to the trivial cannonball example?
From the link:
“If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude, it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit, just like the Moon. (C) for example horizontal speed of at approximately 7,300 m/s for Earth.”
Also:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
Nobody is arguing the moon’s orbit is simple (or precisely circular; it’s slightly elliptical). There are all sorts of quirks and peculiarities.
That doesn’t mean simplifications aren’t useful to get a point across.
Whereas obfuscating the issue helps nobody, except those looking for ways to miss the point.
Bindidon, quit being a pompous blowhard, and answer the simple question.
DREMT
I do not obfuscate anything.
You persist, together with Huffman, Robertson and Flynn, in ignoring this:
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moons latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic. This theory of the libration of the moon, Mr. N. Mercator in his Astronomy, published at the beginning of the year 1676, explained more fully out of the letters I sent him.
The utmost satellite of Saturn seems to revolve about its axis with a motion like this of the moon, respecting Saturn continually with the same face; for in its revolution round Saturn, as often as it comes to the eastern part of its orbit, it is scarcely visible, and generally quite disappears; which is like to be occasioned by some spots in that part of its body, which is then turned towards the earth, as M. Cassini has observed.
So also the utmost satellite of Jupiter seems to revolve about its axis with a like motion, because in that part of its body which is turned from Jupiter it has a spot, which always appears as if it were in Jupiters own body, whenever the satellite passes between Jupiter and our eye.|/i>
*
I think you don’t believe in Newton’s words, but do not want to clearly express it.
And that is the reason why you simply do as if I would misinterpret what he wrote.
Agree to disagree.
“…therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb…”
That quote clearly indicates the Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis.
JD…”Is a racehorse ACTUALLY rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track?”
We would have to compare that to a planet that does rotate about its own axis as it orbits….the Earth. Comparing a racehorse to that model, the racehorse would have to rotate in circles as it orbited the track. After all, the Earth rotates about its axis 365+ times in one orbit.
That is clearly not the case therefore the horse is like the Moon, it is not rotating about a local axis since the same side of both the horse and the Moon face the inside of the track/orbit at all times.
binny…”No Huffman racehorses, no Robdertson coins, no DREMT cannonballs. Only Newtons words”.
Newton is far too advanced for a number-cruncher like you. Stick to fudging UAH data in an Excel spreadsheet.
The fact that you cannot understand models based on physics suggests you are way out of your element.
binny…”You persist, together with Huffman, Robertson and Flynn, in ignoring this:
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis,”
Newton is clearly talking about a REVOLUTION (ORBIT) about an external axis. He is referring to the Moon’s orbit about the Earth.
The lunar day is determined by the Moon’s position wrt the Sun, not the Earth. The lunar days is determined by the Moon’s position in its orbit not by its position in a rotation about a local axis.
A scientist of Newton’s repute would not mistake revolution for rotation. A number cruncher might, not Newton.
BTW…I just channeled Isaac and told him what you said. He told me to tell you you’re an idiot.
‘Nobody is arguing the moons orbit is simple (or precisely circular; its slightly elliptical). There are all sorts of quirks and peculiarities.
That doesnt mean simplifications arent useful to get a point across.’
Yes, yes you guys are doing just that!
You are trying to shoehorn the motion of two independently moving objects into a model of a single rigid body.
Just doesnt work. Can’t account for the actual complexity of the motion.
Can’t account for orbits of all other bodies in the solar system, as Newtons model of orbiting plus rotating on an axis easily does.
So why do it?
To be rebels! Right or wrong we’re rebels against regular science!
Nate is rambling incoherently, a victum of reality.
Nothing new.
‘But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis’
Has a clear meaning, Gordon.
It is NOT about orbiting the Earth, as you oddly claim. It is about spinning on ‘its axis’.
You guys just can’t stop declaring made-up unsupportable things.
Then when no evidence can be found, you double down, triple down….47 down on nonsense!
Nate is so frustrated by the simple question:
Is a racehorse ACTUALLY rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track?
“Yes”, or “No”. One word answer is all that is necessary. No need for irrelevant and rambling obfuscation.
JD never offers up answers to our basic questions, but demands answers to thoroughly pointless ‘been-there-done-that-47-times’ questions from us!
Weird.
JD dictionary for those who dont have a copy:
‘rambling incoherently’ –
1. Facts and ideas presented in a few plain English sentences.
2. Facts presented that JD cannot refute.
3. JD has nothing of substance to say.
binny…”That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion”.
Why do you continue to supply quotes supporting my argument and disproving your own.
The statement you supply claims the motions of the planets are uniform wrt the background stars and that the libration of the Moon is due to its motion wrt the stars.
Nowhere does it claim the Moon rotates on its axis.
In the following statement, it is obvious he is not talking about the Moon’s axis but its external axis in the Earth centre. Newton states, “its uniform REVOLUTION about its axis”. No one would refer to a local rotation about an axis as a revolution.
He then again talks about libration.
“But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude;”
So the moon rotates on its axis relative to the Sun.
Richard Whybray
“So the moon rotates on its axis relative to the Sun.”
Exactly as does our Earth, Jupiter, and so on.
From the inertial reference frame of the “fixed stars”, or relative to the sun, or relative to the Earth, the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
DREMT
Newton was perfectly aware of what is a barycentre. He himself accurately calculated its position for the Earth/Moon duo.
If he would have thought that the Moon’s revolution is one about Moon’s and Earth’s barycentre, he obviously would have written that!
As we have already discussed, it reads to me like he did.
DREMT
Show us the text where he did (or better: where you supposed he did).
Already discussed it. Won’t do so again. Conclude as you wish.
Bindidon, answer the simple question.
Quit running and dodging.
richard…”So the moon rotates on its axis relative to the Sun”.
No…it moves in its orbit relative to the Sun. Meantime, the Earth, with its orbiting Moon, orbits the Sun.
Fun stuff, eh??
Richard is right. The Moon is rotating on its axis and revolving around the Earth-Moon barycentre. Both are revolving around the Earth/Moon/Sun barycentre.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-366846
Incorrect. If the moon was rotating on its own axis as well as rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That’s a fact, by the way, not that you people care.
DREMT,
You would see all faces of the Moon if it had an angular velocity of any other value than 2.66e-6 rad/s. In other words, any slower or any faster would necessarily result in all faces of the Moon being visible to an observer on Earth at some point in time.
You can derive the 2.66e-6 rad/s value without a-priori knowledge that the Moon is rotating.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354422
bdgwx, your “physics” continues to be amusing. The Moon has zero angular momentum about its axis.
Is a racehorse actually rotating on it axis, as it run an oval track?
(You know where the backdoor is.)
bdg…”You would see all faces of the Moon if it had an angular velocity of any other value than 2.66e-6 rad/s.”
As DREMT so eloquently stated, if the Moon has any kind of local rotation, you’d see the entire surface of the Moon at some point during its orbit.
The notion that the Moon completes one local rotation per orbit is sheer nonsense. It is physically impossible for Earth’s gravity to hold the same face of the Moon toward us during the entire lunar orbit and have the Moon rotate about its axis at the same time.
Tidal locking is physically impossible?
Can you provide a derivation of the Moon’s angular velocity starting with the synodic period?
You seem to have misread what Gordon said.
But one thing that is worth repeating for you, is that if you think calculations resolve this issue, then you don’t understand the issue.
If the moon was rotating on its own axis as well as rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That’s a fact, by the way, not that you people care.
This message will be repeated until you stop responding to me.
It’s not a “fact” — not when the period of lunar rotation equals the period of the orbit.
Then you’d only see the same side of the moon, because its angular velocity of rotation is the same as the angular velocity of orbiting.
#2
If the moon was rotating on its own axis as well as rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That’s a fact, by the way, not that you people care.
This message will be repeated until you stop responding to me.
This is true only if spin angular velocity is different than the orbital angular velocity. But because the Moon is tidally locked with the Earth the spin-orbit ratio is 1:1 at 2.66e-6 rad/s in the prograde direction. Interestingly if the spin angular velocity were to slow down then the Moon would *appear* to rotate retrograde from Earth’s perspective and if it were to speed up then the it would *appear* to rotate prograde from Earth’s perspective. Note that in both cases the Moon would still be rotating prograde from a rotationally inertial reference frame.
That’s worth repeating. If the spin rate were to deviate from the 1:1 resonance then the Moon would *appear* to rotate in different directions depending on whether it sped up or slowed down even though from a rotationally inertial reference frame (fixed stars) it never changed its direction.
“This is true only if…”
You’re still not there. If an object is rotating about a central point, it moves similarly to the moon, with the same face always presented to that central point. This is just a fact, bdgwx. That’s what “rotation about a central point” is. That’s what it is. That’s what it looks like. So if the moon were rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. No exceptions.
Until you can accept this fact I have no interest in talking to you.
DA…”Then youd only see the same side of the moon, because its angular velocity of rotation is the same as the angular velocity of orbiting”.
Your premise is impossible. Try it using two coins with the RH coin being slid around the perimeter of the LH coin. If you can keep a marked face of the RH coin against the LH coin you cannot also rotate that marked face about the RH coin’s axis.
You should try it yourself. Keep the finger in contact with RH coin pointed away from your body at all times and let us know if the RH rotates relative to your finger. Note that since your finger is staying oriented in the same direction it is a valid rotatonally inertial reference frame.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367086
It’s now been over 2 hours, and neither Nate or Bindidon has been able to answer the simple question.
They believe they know so much, but when it comes time to face reality, they seek the backdoor.
Nothing new.
Norman, bob, bdgwx, child-gone-stupid, any takers?
Is a racehorse ACTUALLY rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track?
“Yes”, or “No”. One word answer is all that is necessary. No need for irrelevant and rambling obfuscation.
Huffman
“No need for irrelevant and rambling obfuscation.”
You perfectly know that your question does not at all contribute to the discussion, but persist in asking for a reply.
The irrelevant and rambling obfuscation is contained in what you ask for.
But please: continue asking, confusing, dibverting, discrediting.
I will always continue to refer to Newton’s text.
Yes, you have no actual argument, so I don’t doubt that’s true.
DREMT
“Yes, you have no actual argument…”
As long as Newton does not get contradicted concerning this:
“Quoniam vero Lunae, circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis”
there is no need to invent any ‘actual’ argument.
An appeal to authority isn’t an argument.
Bindidon, after all your bluster, you’re going to look like a complete phony if you can’t answer the simple question. It’s not a trick question. The question merely identifies who can face reality, and who can’t.
“So the moon rotates on its axis relative to the Sun”
This where you all go wrong,
angular momentum has no relationship to any other body
only to itself, no other relative motion to anything else has any role in determining angular momentum.
Eben
You didn’t understand why Newton refers to fixed stars.
It has nothing to do with whichever angular momentum.
The latter is what you compute for a celestial body once you have understood that… it rotates.
you still don’t understand you need no stars to determine angular momentum
using distant stars is only an approximation shortcut
“fixed stars” is an oxymoron , there no fixed stars , they all move relative to everything else
eben…”angular momentum has no relationship to any other body
only to itself, no other relative motion to anything else has any role in determining angular momentum”.
That’s right. So, if the Moon has the same face pointed at us during an orbit it has no local angular momentum in any reference frame.
One argument is that the Moon is rotating one rotation per orbit and synchronized with the orbital period. That is nonsense.
As the Moon orbits the Earth, all particles on the near face MUST BE moving in an orbit. All particles behind the near face MUST BE moving in an orbit parallel to the near face orbit.
Of course, it’s not kosher to talk about particles in a rigid body moving independently. However, each particle is translating in parallel paths to the particles inside it. That means all particles on the Moon could be considered as forming an infinite series of parallel orbits.
In that case, it is not possible for any of the particles to be rotating about a central particle, the axis, which itself is orbiting in a medium parallel orbit.
eben…”angular momentum has no relationship to any other body
only to itself, no other relative motion to anything else has any role in determining angular momentum”.
That’s right. So, if the Moon has the same face pointed at us during an orbit it has no local angular momentum in any reference frame.
sorry about repeat post. I thought the last post had not posted.
Gordon Robertson says:
Thats right. So, if the Moon has the same face pointed at us during an orbit it has no local angular momentum in any reference frame.
No.
Forget orbiting. If the Moon has no spin angular momentum (let’s call it; motion about its own axis), it would always face in the same direction. Someone on the Moon’s surface would, in that case, always see the same section of the universe. They would see the same stars in the same locations.
But that’s not what someone standing on the Moon’s surface would see. They’d see the stars sweep around them every 27.32 days.
You can add orbiting if you like. But that is the motion of the Moon’s center of mass, and says nothing about its spin angular momentum.
How far up the blogroll will David’s dirty brown smear reach today? He’s gone up pretty far already…
In fact, the whole thing is about the inability of the rotation deniers to distinguish between rotation and revolution.
Incorrect. Revolution is the word typically used to refer to orbital motion. All are aware of this, so find another pathetic straw man to attack.
However, if the moon were rotating about its own axis, and rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Until you understand that fact, you are the one in denial.
However, if the moon were rotating about its own axis, and rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
No. It’s hard to believe you still don’t understand this.
When the angular velocity of rotation = the angular velocity of the orbit, the Moon will always present the same side to the Earth.
If you doubt this, go to a tree and face it. Now walk around it, sideways, always facing the tree. This is rotation + orbiting with the same facing.
Now try it so you rotate *twice* in your orbit around the tree. You can’t keep your face always towards the tree. This is rotation + orbiting without the same facing.
Walk around the tree while always facing north. This is orbiting WITHOUT rotation.
You’re wrong, David. The motion “rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter” is effectively the same as the motion the moon makes. The motion “rotating on its own axis” is separate to that.
There are people on your side of the argument here that understand that, David.
It’s not my fault you’re thick.
A racehorse probably knows more physics than DA.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The motion rotating on its own axis is separate to that.
Yes. Finally.
If the Earth suddenly vanished, the Moon would head off in a tangential direction. But its internal motion would not be affected — it would still spin.
It would be exceedingly unlikely for the Moon not to rotation. It would have had to be formed without rotation, and the Earth and Moon would have to have radially symmetric densities. Any deviation from radial symmetry would create a torque that would cause rotation.
And of course, neither the Earth nor the Moon has a radially symmetric density — a density that depends only on the distance from its center — because of fluctuations in the Earth liquid inner core and because of mountains and valleys on both the Earth and the Moon.
I doubt there’s an astronomical body in the universe that doesn’t rotate about an internal axis (relative to an inertial reference frame).
What do you mean, “Yes. Finally”?
I’ve always been aware that “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” are separate and independent motions. It’s just that you get both of them wrong.
DREMT:
Define “rotation.”
Specify how someone on an celestial body can determine if it’s rotating.
Ah, he’s made his way to the top for his first smear, now he’s smearing his way back down the blogroll, demanding people do this and that for him, ignoring the explanations people have already gone to great lengths to make, ignoring all context, refusing to think for himself, and just generally “doin’ a David” all over the blog.
If we can’t agree on the definition of “rotation,” we can’t come to an agreement on the motion of the Moon.
Until you can understand this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367275
You will never make any progress.
But I’m OK with that, to be honest. Not my problem.
DA…”When the angular velocity of rotation = the angular velocity of the orbit, the Moon will always present the same side to the Earth”.
What you meant to say is the period of the orbit. The angular velocity of the orbit is the instantaneous value of a radial line from Earth’s centre through the centre of the Moon.
If I place the Earth at the 0,0 coordinate of an x-y plane with the Moon’s near face facing the Earth, and the Moon centred at x = 1, in order for the Moon to complete a circular orbit while rotating exactly once about its local axis, the near side would have to rotate through 360 degrees about that axis. It cannot do that and keep the same face toward the Earth.
You are confusing local angular momentum with the properties of the orbit, which is due to Earth’s gravitational field. Under the influence of gravity, the Moon can complete an orbit, with the same face always pointing at the Earth, without rotating locally.
Why you alarmists, and even NASA, don’t understand that is the mystery.
I am sure all NASA engineers don’t believe that, only the NASA PR people, who obviously have no scientific checks on their propaganda. As proof of that look at NASA GISS, a completely out of control branch that preaches pseudo-science.
At one time, James Hansen was head of GISS and going well beyond his mandate. The head of NASA wanted to fire him but orders came down from on high, in the US government, overruling NASA’s chief. Maybe Hansen’s buddy, Al Gore.
Gordon Robertson says:
DAWhen the angular velocity of rotation = the angular velocity of the orbit, the Moon will always present the same side to the Earth.
What you meant to say is the period of the orbit. The angular velocity of the orbit is the instantaneous value of a radial line from Earths centre through the centre of the Moon.
No, I meant what I wrote — the angular velocity of orbiting and the angular velocity of lunar rotation.
omega = d(theta)/dt
The former is a constant 360 degrees in 27.321661 days (assuming the orbit is a circle) = 13.18 deg/day.
The latter, for lunar rotation, is the rate a solid piece of the Moon travels around its polar axis. It has nothing to do with the Earth or the Moon’s path through space — it’s a independent motion.
Yes, “orbiting” and “axial rotation” are separate and independent motions. You just get each of them wrong.
How would you define and measure the rotation rate of an celestial body?
GR says:
Why you alarmists, and even NASA, dont understand that is the mystery.
And you think NASA, which actually landed on the Moon and had to calculate trajectories for getting on it and back, doesn’t know if the Moon is rotating or not? You think its angular velocity never appeared in any of their equations?
That’s idiotic.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367302
As I said in a different comment, that comment you keep pointing to is wrong.
Poor David obviously didn’t click on the link this time.
The Moon makes one revolution around the Earth for each rotation around its axis. Hence an Earth based observer always sees the same face of the moon.
The rotation rate is constant, but the rate of revolution varies. The Moon’s orbit is elliptical. At apogee the Moon is revolving slower than it rotates. At perigee it revolves faster than it rotates.
This is visible as libration, the apparant 9 degree rocking of the moon in longitude.
E-man, this has all been discussed for months. Where have you been?
You are WAY behind.
Is a racehorse “rotating on its axis” while running an oval track?
JDHuffman
You may have been discussing it for months, but you keep making the same mistakes.
The proper question is “Rotating relative to what?”
For astronomical bodies such as moons, planets, stars and galaxies the reference frame is right ascension and declination, effectively the inertial reference frame.
Relative to that frame of reference Earth rotates once in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
Relative to the inertial reference frame the Moon rotates on its axis once in 27.3 days and revolves around the Earth once in 27.3 days.
Hence the illusion that, to an observer on the Earth’s surface, the moon does not rotate.
Wrong E-man. You’re confusing frames of reference with reality. For example, in reality, is a racehorse actually rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track?
It’s an easy “yes” or “no” question, but so far, no clowns have been able to answer it.
JDHuffman
Again, you make the mistake of omitting the frame of reference.
Relative to an observer in the centre of the racetrack the racehorse is apparantly not rotating. Relative to the landscape the racehorse rotates once on its vertical axis for each lap of the course.
One aspect of your thought processes stands out. Your arguments about racehorses and the Moon depend crucially on your cherrypicking particular rotating frames of reference.
Simple. Imagine the track contracting smaller and smaller. The horse keeps running around in smaller and smaller circles until, finally, it is chasing its tail and actually spinning on a point. I call that rotating
Wrong E-man. You’re still confusing frames of reference with reality. For example, in reality, is a racehorse actually rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track?
It’s an easy “yes” or “no” question, but so far, no clowns have been able to answer it.
DMT says: “Imagine the track contracting smaller and smaller.”
DMT, if the horse scaled down the same as the track, nothing would change.
DMT…OK, now picture the horse running along an imaginary track around the Earth’s equator. You’re looking down on the Earth from above the North Pole. You shrink the Earth down until it’s only a few feet wide. The horse is not rotating on its own axis. Shrink the Earth down to nothing. The horse is rotating, but still not on its own axis.
I call that not rotating on its own axis.
JDH: “if the horse scaled down the same as the track”
Why does the horse need to be scaled? All you need to do is shrink the track and watch the rotation become obvious.
DREMT: “The horse is rotating, but still not on its own axis.”
We agree! The horse is rotating! I don’t care which axis you chose.
dmt…”The horse keeps running around in smaller and smaller circles until, finally, it is chasing its tail and actually spinning on a point. I call that rotating…”
The only way it would become rotation is when the horse is rotating locally under it’s own motive power about a centre of gravity, or while mounted on a rotating platform that could orbit the track.
If the orbits became increasing smaller you would reach a limit where the horse was not longer moving forward but simply turning around a local axis. Therefore you could not shrink the orbits beyond a certain point where the horse was not moving forward.
Even if it was chasing it’s tail, it would still be orbiting an external axis.
Change focus for a momentum and consider wooden horses on a merry-go-round. They are fixed on a pole so they cannot rotate locally yet they still orbit the centre of the merry-go-round with the same face pointed inward.
Ian…”All you need to do is shrink the track and watch the rotation become obvious”.
The point being missed here, Ian, is that all points on the horse are moving in different parallel orbits about the track’s centre.
Presuming the track is circular, to avoid the complexity of an elliptical orbit, a radial line from the track’s centre through the horse’s centre of gravity is the reference point. All points along that radial line through the horse are moving in ever-greater concentric circles.
With all points on concentric circles it is not possible for them to cross the path of the circles as would be required for local rotation.
The same applies to the Moon which is held in orbit by Earth gravity field. A radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre has all points along that line through the Moon moving in ever-increasing concentric orbits.
It is simply not possible for an point along that radial line to cross over another concentric orbit as would be required for local rotation. If that was the case, we’d see all sides of the Moon.
Ian…”The horse is rotating, but still not on its own axis.
We agree! The horse is rotating! I dont care which axis you chose”.
Your quote here from Dremt is taken out of context. He was referring to the angular rotation of an angular line from Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre. In that case, the Moon is rotating as a rigid body about an external axis but still with no local rotation.
Ian…correction,,,
“He was referring to the angular rotation of an angular line from Earths centre through the Moons centre”.
should read…
“He was referring to the angular rotation of a radial line from Earths centre through the Moons centre”.
The argument is, and always has been, that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
That’s still wrong.
NASA knows the Moon is rotating, because they had to actually land on it and lift off again.
Since nobody is arguing that the Moon doesn’t move as it does, NASA would have had no problems.
“The Moon makes one revolution around the Earth for each rotation around its axis”
In which case, what you refer to as “revolution” must be as per the diagram on the right, in the below:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Dr Roys Emergency Mderation Team
I think we interpret the diagrams differently.
In the left hand diagram I see each arrow as an object rotating on an axis sticking up vertically out of the screen. Each arrow rotates once around its axis per orbit of the Earth, as the Moon does.
In the right hand diagram, the arrow better represents a satellite such as the Hubble telescope which revolves in orbit around the Earth, but remains pointing at a distant star and does not rotate.
Then your problem is you do not understand orbital motion, E-man.
Figure 1 represents orbital motion. The arrow changes direction due to the vectors acting on it. The arrow is NOT rotating on its axis.
To make it even easier to visualize, imagine a giant throws a spear with just the correct velocity so that it goes into orbit around the Earth. It would appear as in Figure 1.
E Man, if you think that the moon is rotating on its axis whilst it also revolves about the Earth, simultaneously, then you think must think the separate motion “revolving about the Earth” is as per the diagram on the right. How can you not understand that? Can you not, mentally, add one motion to the other?
This is what we’re dealing with. They don’t even understand their own argument. Let alone ours.
They have been caught between reality and their false religion.
entropic…”In the left hand diagram I see each arrow as an object rotating on an axis sticking up vertically out of the screen”.
The ‘vectors’ in the left drawing are tangential vectors perpendicular to radial lines from the Earth’s centre. They represent the actual linear momentum of the Moon AT ANY INSTANT.
As the Moon tries to proceed in a tangential direction it is drawn to a new tangential direction by Earth’s gravity, which acts across the entire face of the Moon. Therefore the Moon is bent as a rigid body into a succession of new instantaneous paths which are a resultant path between the Moon’s tangential linear momentum path and the perpendicular radial acceleration due to Earth’s gravitational force.
Each instant of the Moon’s orbit is represented by a new tangential vector and the motion appears as in the left hand drawing. The Moon does not need to rotate on its own axis, Earth’s gravity does the turning for it. However, the Moon, as a rigid body, turns gradually with all particles along the radial line to the Earth’s centre moving in concentric circles.
The Moon is not turning about a local axis, it is turning as a rigid body as if it was on a rope or a rigid member attached to Earth.
A good example is a wooden horse on a carousel. You guys insist that a real horse on a track is rotating around its axis, but the wooden horse is fixed and cannot rotate locally. It performs essentially the same orbital motion as a real horse on a track, however, while constrained from rotating locally.
The Moon is not turning about a local axis
It is. If it wasn’t, we on Earth wouldn’t always see the same side of it.
The animation below is crystal clear. Look at the Moon on the left. Look at its polar axis, the small white circle in its center. FORGET THE EARTH. Stare at the polar axis. Do you see the dark patch of the lunar surface moving around that axis.
That’s rotation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“That’s rotation.”
…but not on its own axis.
DA…”The animation below is crystal clear.”
What’s crystal clear is that you are suffering a delusion.
Draw an imaginary radial line from the Earth’s centre to the centre of the rotating Moon on the left hand gif, and look at the Moon from that perspective. It is clearly not turning about its axis. All parts of the Moon along the portion of the radial line through the Moon are turning in concentric circles about th Earth.
Conversely, look at the dark patch always facing the Earth. All of its components are turning in a circular orbit about the Earth. It is not possible for the rest of the Moon not to be turning in the same concentric circles outside the dark patch.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Thats rotation.
but not on its own axis.
The right-hand side of the animation shows the Moon orbiting while not rotating.
On the left-hand side, focus on the Moon’s axis. Ignore the Earth. See the dark patch on the Moon’s surface moving around it? That’s lunar rotation.
The dark patch faces in all directions as the Moon moves. It wouldn’t do that if the Moon weren’t rotating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
On the left-hand side, focus on the dark patch on the Moon’s surface moving around. That’s because the moon is rotating about the Earth. As it rotates, the same face of the moon always faces the center point. That’s what rotating about a central point involves, you see. The Moon is not rotating on its own axis.
On the right-hand side, the Moon is rotating about the Earth, again. Only this time, it is also rotating on its own axis CW, once, per CCW orbit. This results in the effect that it appears as though the dark patch on the Moon’s surface remains aligned to the same fixed point. The CW axial rotation is “off-setting” the CCW orbital motion, you see.
“The Moon is not rotating on its own axis.”
Ok, I get DREMT’s POV. DREMT writes the moon is not rotating on its own axis so it is the Earth & all the fixed stars are rotating about the moon’s own fixed axis while hovering over the same moon face.
You could look at it like that. Moon happens to be at THE center of the rotating universe.
Now DREMT needs to explain how the gravity of the moon is sufficient to deflect the mass of earth & the entire universe into rotating about the moon’s own axis.
And how the rotating universe angular momentum is conserved because there happens to be a parallel universe counter-rotating to conserve momentum.
DREMT, please stop being a dummy like JD.
A ludicrous straw man, courtesy of Ball4.
DREMT, please stop being a dummy like JD.
I will try to be as clever as you, Ball4.
Good 1:50pm DREMT can do it; that is study a little competent astrophysics, can’t hurt DREMT and will advance DREMT beyond JD’s level.
I was going to say something mean, but can’t be bothered now. Besides, there’s too much unpleasantness in the world. I will just say:
OK, Ball4.
What exactly do the arrows on the right-hand diagram represent?
Same as they do in the diagram on the left. It’s the direction the object is facing whilst it orbits.
“Its the direction the object is facing whilst it orbits.”
Then the arrows in orbit on the left make one 360 degree rotation per orbit while the arrows on the right do not rotate as they orbit.
An alternative interpretation would be that the arrows represent the vector, the direction of motion of the orbiting object.
This works if the arrows on the left are in orbit, but would mean that the objects on the right are not in orbit, but moving past the planet.
“imagine a giant throws a spear with just the correct velocity so that it goes into orbit around the Earth. It would appear as in Figure 1.”
Afraid not. A thrown spear has a centre of mass ahead of its centre of resistance. Flying through the air it flies like an arrow, pointing in its direction of motion. Once it leaves the atmosphere it keeps pointing in whatever direction it happened to point at the time.
The arrows on the right represent what you must think “revolution” is, if you believe the moon is both revolving about the Earth, and rotating on its own axis, simultaneously.
Wake me when you have had that realization.
E-man, you are still confused about orbital motion: “Once it leaves the atmosphere it keeps pointing in whatever direction it happened to point at the time.”
WRONG!
The spear is acted upon by vectors. It is steered by the resultant vector. You refuse to accept reality. That’s why you avoid answering the simple question about the racehorse.
I would jump in because I think you’re wrong on this JD but having too much fun watching you debate those mental midgets.
It’s not just me, Stephen. There are about 6-8 of us, from time to time, that know this is just another hoax. The Moon issue is easy to understand, as it requires no deep understanding of physics. But, it’s fun to watch the believers scramble to cover for their failed pseudoscience.
If you don’t yet understand it, stick around. An open mind is all you need….
‘There are about 6-8 of us, from time to time, that know this is just another hoax.
Only about 3-4.
‘The Moon issue is easy to understand, as it requires no deep understanding of physics. ‘
JD means ANY understanding of physics is a hindrance to accepting his gang’s erroneous physics.
Nate is so frustrated because he can’t answer the simple question. But, he still has his insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
Nothing new.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Same as they do in the diagram on the left. Its the direction the object is facing whilst it orbits.
You have these diagrams backwards.
The left-hand diagram is true for a point mass orbiting a body. For an extended body, it shows the body rotating while orbiting.
The right-hand diagram is an object orbiting and — because it always faces in the same direction — not rotating.
A body that rotates does not always present a face that always points in the same direction. That’s the definition of rotation.
How do you define rotation?
If a body is rotating about a central point, it presents the same face to that central point as it rotates about it. Just a fun fact for you to ignore.
DA…”The left-hand diagram is true for a point mass orbiting a body”.
It’s true for the tangential plane upon which you reside in Oregon. Those vectors in the LH drawing represent your motion through space as you rotate on the Earth. The only thing preventing you sailing off into space along one of those vectors is gravity.
BTW…if the Earth was struck by a mass of sufficient size to make it stop suddenly, that’s exactly what you’d do, at about 800 mph at the latitude of Oregon. Fortunately, or not, Earth’s gravity would bring you back to Earth rather abruptly.
dremt…”If a body is rotating about a central point, it presents the same face to that central point as it rotates about it”.
In the case of DA, as the body, he would be presenting his butt to the central point.
☺️
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
If a body is rotating about a central point, it presents the same face to that central point as it rotates about it. Just a fun fact for you to ignore.
This is the crux of your misunderstanding — you fail to see there are TWO axes of rotation in the problem — one about the Earth, and the other about the Moon’s polar axis.
The Moon is rotating about both. These are separate, de-coupled motions.
This is the crux of your misunderstanding – you fail to see there are TWO axes of rotation in the problem – one about the Earth, and the other about the Moon’s polar axis.
The Moon is only rotating about the Earth, and not on its own axis.
As I just explained, if a body is rotating about a central point, it presents the same face to that central point as it rotates about it.
As DREMT just incompetently explained, if a body is rotating about a central point, it presents the same face to that central point as it rotates about it.
Actually a competent astrophysicist knows if a body is orbiting about a central object, it presents the same face to that central object if it rotates once on its own internal axis in orbit on an external axis about the central body.
DREMT, please stop being an incompetent astrophysicist.
Wrong.
DREMT, please stop being an incompetent astrophysicist.
“As DREMT just incompetently explained, if a body is rotating about a central point, it presents the same face to that central point as it rotates about it.”
Well actually, I suppose if you agree with that, despite how incompetently you say I explained it, we’re all good. I promise I will try to be less of an incompetent astrophysicist.
DREMT, please stop supposing with what I agree.
A competent astrophysicist knows if a body is orbiting about a central object, then it presents the same face to that central object if it rotates once on its own internal axis in orbit on an external axis about the central body.
Oh…but anyone who understands what rotation is, would be aware than an object that rotates about a central point, presents the same face to that central point as it rotates about it. Regardless of astrophysics.
An object that orbits on an external axis about a central object, presents the same face to that central object as it rotates once on its own internal axis.
DREMT, you are getting close, a little added & corrected verbiage clarifies your intent to be a competent astrophysicist.
It seems like I’m talking about a general fact about rotation, and you are talking about the currently accepted “astrophysics” terminology.
So you can be deceptive without actually outright lying, which you would be if you definitively stated that this statement: “an object that rotates about a central point, presents the same face to that central point as it rotates about it” was false.
Study about volcanic heating and climate at wattsupwiththat.com
–JC reflections
Our understanding of the link between sea floor geothermal heat flux and climate seems to be in its infancy–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/22/geothermal-ocean-warming-discussion-thread/
Gbaikie
Read the comments. They point out two problems with Dr Currie’s post.
1) She employs the logical fallacy of the “argument from ignorance”
An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance (‘ignorance’ stands for “lack of evidence to the contrary”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. … This is also called a negative proof fallacy.
2) She misinterprets the total geothermal heat flow as a change in heat flow over the last 20 years. This is significant.
If the geothermal heat flow is constant the ocean would be in equilibrium, with heat escaping to space as fast as it enters the ocean from below, with no temperature change.
If the heat flow were increasing, then the ocean would beincreasing in temperature and heat content at the same rate.
There is no evidence that the geothermal heat flow is increasing; there is evidence that ocean temperatures and heat content are increasing. Thus, on the available evidence, the ocean heating is not due to increased geothermal heat flow.
–Entropic man says:
July 22, 2019 at 5:01 PM
Gbaikie
Read the comments. They point out two problems with Dr Currie’s post.
1) She employs the logical fallacy of the “argument from ignorance”–
Are referring to Steven Mosher’s post?
–2) She misinterprets the total geothermal heat flow as a change in heat flow over the last 20 years. This is significant.–
Didn’t see that in the 34 thoughts at watts or 79 Comments at:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/21/geothermal-ocean-warming-discussion-thread/
—If the geothermal heat flow is constant the ocean would be in equilibrium, with heat escaping to space as fast as it enters the ocean from below, with no temperature change.—
There is no reason to assume this
—If the heat flow were increasing, then the ocean would be increasing in temperature and heat content at the same rate.
There is no evidence that the geothermal heat flow is increasing; there is evidence that ocean temperatures and heat content are increasing. Thus, on the available evidence, the ocean heating is not due to increased geothermal heat flow.—
Not sure Curry thinks or even is allowing as possible that any current warming- say, last 50 years is directly connected to oceanic geothermal heat.
She says:
–JC reflections
Our understanding of the link between sea floor geothermal heat flux and climate seems to be in its infancy
There seems to be a sufficient number of publications and observational evidence that lend credence to a link; the issue is the magnitude of the effect. Dismissing such an effect as unimportant given our current state of understanding is misguided.
Since this is a topic that I haven’t spent a lot of time investigating, I look forward to insights and references from the comments.–
Oh, our blog host gave first reply, at climate etc:
–Roy W. Spencer | July 21, 2019 at 3:44 pm | Reply
The vertical profile of ocean warming (if it can be believed) suggests warming decreasing with depth. Its hard to imagine that the heat is originating from below. Also, we need to distinguish between the average geothermal heat flux versus any increasing in that over time, the latter being forcing. Finally, any increase in geothermal heat flux would probably take centuries to be felt at the surface the ocean abyss has stable stratification, and so must be slowly forced upward on the large scale by convective sinking in certain polar regions.
curryja | July 21, 2019 at 4:30 pm | Reply
Direct surface warming by seafloor geothermal flux isnt the point. The issues are using ocean heat content in inferring TOA flux imbalance and ocean circulation changes (which indirectly influence surface warming via atmosphere/cloud response).—
Isn’t her point.
But I think average temperature of entire ocean, is global average temperature- or controls ocean average surface temperature, and ocean surface temperature controls Land surface average temperature.
But if interested in time periods of less than say, 10,000 years {and who isn’t} probably what she talking about is more relevant/important.
Or I think average volume temperature matters. 2 C equals glacial period. 4 C equals interglacial period.
And the cold ocean within range of 1 to 5 C means we are in an Ice Age [with glacial and interglacial periods].
Considering people can can hysterical about warming, I think important to keep in mind that we in an Ice Age.
And we are not going to leave it, within a thousand years, or likely within a million years.
It also means we not going to escape from having about 30% of planet being deserts. Having having vast land areas being deserts is part of our Ice Age.
Or the “climate change” is not going to get rid of deserts, I would suggest that humans should get rid of most of our deserts.
entropic…”Read the comments. They point out two problems with Dr Curries post.”
I read through half the comments carefully and saw nothing you claim. Most of them were positive to the article.
BTW…Judith cited references for her claims earlier in the article disproving your claim of argument from ignorance.
It would be a real kick in the butt to the pseudo-science of you alarmists if it could be proved that surface warming is influenced by geothermal sources.
JDHuffman
In the atmosphere air drag causes the shaft to trail behind the spearhead, which then points in its direction of travel.
I see no reason why a spear in orbit outside the atmosphere would point in its direction of travel.
Please explain why you expect this to happen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Have a read through and look at the animations here. Have a proper think about it. Give it a day or so before you respond.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Is the motion of the cannonball in the relevant “orbiting” animation represented by the left arrows, or the right arrows, in the above diagram?
dremt…from link one…
“If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude, it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit, just like the Moon”.
Did I miss something or has someone forgotten about air resistance? The only reason the Moon stays in orbit, as well as the Earth around the Sun, is the absence of air resistance.
I get it about the parabolic path of any object fired horizontally in Earth’s atmosphere. The spear fired horizontally would follow a parabolic path till it landed.
As you claim, if the spear did reach orbit in a straight line, which is a lot more difficult than it seems (angles of orbital entry), it’s instantaneous path would resemble the left hand drawing.
As far as I’m concerned, these animations show quite clearly the link between linear momentum and gravity, that you explain in the quoted text here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
DREMT, ‘Have a read through and look at the animations here.
We’ve been over this.
Just like Q = 0, DREMT asserts something but cannot EXPLAIN it or show any evidence whatsoever.
The cannonball is simply a uniform sphere and there is no way to tell if it is rotating on its axis or not.
I asked DREMT what we are supposed to see in these animations that gives any insight, and he was unable to say.
It seems to be just a feeling he gets.
In the absence of evidence, best to look at what Newton WROTE, as Bindidon showed us. ‘
Have you ever studied orbital motion? Have you ever studied vector addition? Have you ever been to a horserace?
Have you ever engaged in orbital motion? Have you ever studied a horse-racing form guide?
Both very difficult things to do.
Is the motion of the cannonball in the relevant “orbiting” animation represented by the left arrows, or the right arrows, in the above diagram?
DREMT
Again, do the arrows represent the vector of the spear or the direction in which the spear is pointing?
There is no reason why a spear in orbit should always point eastwards in its direction of travel. There is no link between orientation and vector.
Your cannonball link shows the vector but says nothing about rotation. Again, why should the spin axis of a spinning cannonball in orbit bear any relation to its vector?
The arrows represent the direction in which the object is pointing.
Now please answer my question.
DREMT
If the arrow represents the direction in which the spear is pointing, then the right hand diagram is correct. If it is not rotating, the spear will continue to point at the same fixed star unless perturbed.
…and this is why it’s impossible to argue with these people.
How can you debate with someone whose concept of what “orbital motion” is, of what “revolution” is, is so screwed up that they think it’s represented by the arrows in the diagram on the right?
Someone that can look at the animations in the “Newton’s cannonball” link, think of an object being fired straight forwards from the cannon, without spin applied at the moment of launch, straight forwards, moving around the Earth always flying parallel to the ground, and completing an orbit…
…and they think that its motion is represented by the arrows on the right.
DREMT asks: “How can you debate with someone whose concept…is so screwed up…”
DREMT, their false religion is more important to them than reality.
That’s why this simple issue is so interesting. It clearly indicates the power and influence of “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”, over the braindead.
They just will not, cannot, must not, break free from their programming.
It’s sad to see. An age where people are more like machines, than human beings.
And the machines are very “entropic”.
They cannot fix themselves when needing repair….
How can you debate with someone whose concept of what ‘orbital motion’ is, of what ‘revolution’ is disagrees with the universally accepted science definitions?
Nate, when you can’t answer simple, direct questions, just make up twisted, “gotcha” questions.
Here is a simple question that I asked you 10 days back, that you refused to answer, just one of many.
“JD,
How does a vertical line define a 3D frame of reference frame exactly, JD?
3D as in x, y z axes? Just one axis wont do it.”
Answer that with a REAL answer and I will answer yours.
ibid.
nate…”How does a vertical line define a 3D frame of reference frame exactly, JD?”
Are you referring to the left hand drawing vectors? An orbit lies on a 2-D surface, therefore a single-line vector is adequate.
Besides, there are no 3-D vectors. They can be defined with three dimensions as xi + yj + zk, with i,j and k as unit vectors. However, vectors are represented by 1-D lines that have magnitude and direction.
‘Ibid’
Loser troll.
‘Are you referring to the left hand drawing vectors? An orbit lies on a 2-D surface, therefore a single-line vector is adequate.’
No Im referring to 6th grader JD’s statement about the Moon that
” the reference frame is its axis, as in vertical line through its center of gravity”
A single axis of rotation cannot, by itself, be a reference frame for rotation, even in 2D.
Need to be able to measure an ANGLE between a crater on the MOONS equator, with respect to something, a reference point! A horizontal axis pointing to a fixed star for example.
But the dimwit-troll JD will evade the question.
entropic…”I see no reason why a spear in orbit outside the atmosphere would point in its direction of travel”.
In the vacuum of space there are no forces, like air drag or turbulence to affect its motion. The only force acting on the spear would be the forces of gravity.
If the spear was launched in a straight line into orbit, outside the atmosphere, with no torque, there’s no reason why it should turn on its own. Since Earth’s gravity is acting on it uniformly, it won’t apply a torque. Gravity will hold it in line with a linear momentum.
If it was struck by a meteorite, that would be another matter.
It’s like the international space station. It remains in position exactly as it was launched. They likely used retro-rockets to stabilize it initially but once it was moving with stability in orbit there are no forces to affect it other than gravity.
The inhabitants of the space station are concerned about a collision with space junk. That might damage the station and send it into a spin.
your horse on a carousel perfectly debunks your claim,
If you mounted the horse on a single pole with a bearing as you turn the carousel the horse will face always in the same direction around the 360 turn because it will not rotate on its axis and no angular momentum is being transferred to it.
The inability to grasp basic fizzix here is staggering
So if the horse was bolted down to the floor so that it was physically incapable of rotating on its own axis…you would argue that as the carousel turned and the horse faced through different directions…that the horse was rotating on its own axis!?
If you drew a chalk circle on the floor at the edge of the carousel…are the atoms within that chalk circle rotating around a central point in the middle of the chalk circle as the carousel turns (some here have actually argued “yes” before ☺️)!?
DREMT
What is your frame of reference? A horse bolted to the floor of a rotating carousel is not rotating relative to the carousel, but shares the carousel’s rotation relative to the fairground.
A rider on the carousel looking at the floor would see no rotation. A passing observer would see both the carousel and the horse rotating.
Can either individual tell whether the carousel or the fairground is rotating? Yes. If you are rotating,move your head around and the coriolis effect moves fluid around your ear canals. The mismatch between what you see and what you ears tell you makes you queasy.
In this case it is the rider who would feel queasy, because both the carousel and the horse are rotating.
A horse, bolted to the floor of the carousel, is not rotating on its own axis from any frame of reference.
The horse is rotating, yes, but it is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and not on its own axis.
Does a horse on a carousel when viewed from the center look like this?
https://youtu.be/xmQ8r_dL9wg
This is what the Moon looks like from Earth during its orbit.
It doesnt look the same because the Moon is not fixed to a platform.
It is not part of a rotating rigid body.
Nate, that is not a horse. It is not on a carousel.
Just some reality for you.
nate…”It doesnt look the same because the Moon is not fixed to a platform”.
The Moon in its orbit behaves as if it is part of a rigid body. If you had a slot around the Earth right to it’s core, that aligned with the Moon’s orbital plane, and there was an axle at the core, and you extended a rigid member from the axle to the Moon, that would represent the Moon’s orbital motion as the structure revolved around the axle.
If you wanted to get fancy, or stupid, and required an elliptical orbit, you’d need an auto-adjuster on the rigid member to allow for elliptical deviations.
Locally, the Moon behaves like the wooden horse on the carousel. It cannot rotate around a local axis.
‘The Moon in its orbit behaves as if it is part of a rigid body.’
No you obviously didnt look at the bloody video, Gordon.
In the video the Moon from Earth is doing all kinds of dance moves, turning on vertical and horizontal axes, and getting bigger and smaller.
NOTHING LIKE what a part of a rigid body would look like.
The MOON is rotating uniformly around a tilted axis, while its orbit is speeding up and slowing down.
The two motions are DECOUPLED.
eben…”your horse on a carousel perfectly debunks your claim,
If you mounted the horse on a single pole with a bearing as you turn the carousel the horse will face always in the same direction around the 360 turn because it will not rotate on its axis and no angular momentum is being transferred to it.”
Move your horse with its bearing to its normal position and start the carousel. Same thing. No local angular momentum. To impart angular momentum, someone would have to stand on the rotating platform and push against the horse to apply a force in a tangential direction around the local bearing axis.
Yes if the horse is on a friction-less bearing it will face in one direction and not rotate on its axes while that axes orbits on a circle around the carousel, and if bolted down the horse face in one all 360 degree directions and rotates around its own axes while that axes orbits on a circle around the carousel.
Are you ready for you Nobel prize yet ???
So the horse, bolted down, physically incapable of rotating on its own axis…is rotating on its own axis as the carousel rotates. OK.
How about the atoms comprising the part of the floor, at the edge of the carousel, within the chalk circle? Are they rotating about a point in the center of the chalk circle, as the carousel rotates?
DREMT
Once again, what is your frame of reference? Like the horse, the atoms in the circle are not rotating relative to the centre of the circle, but both the atoms and the nail marking the centre share the carousel’s rotation within the fairground
The atoms in the chalk circle are not rotating about an axis in the center of the circle from any frame of reference.
The atoms in the circle are rotating, yes, but they are rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and not about an axis in the center of the chalk circle.
DREMT
Frames of reference. The atoms are not rotating around the centre of the chalk circle. They are rotating relative to the fairground and revolving around the centre of the carousel.
Entropic Man
Frames of reference. The atoms in the chalk circle are not rotating about an axis in the center of the circle from any frame of reference.
The atoms in the circle are rotating, yes, but they are rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and not about an axis in the center of the chalk circle.
You sound like you are agreeing, yet somehow want to claim you are disagreeing!
E-man, you do not understand orbital motion. Now you are indicating you do not understand “rotating on an axis”.
You don’t understand the relevant physics, yet you swallow the Moon/tidal-locking pseudoscience.
See why you are a clown?
The atoms comprising the floor near the edge of the carousel, within the chalk circle, are all moving in concentric circles about the center of the carousel, as the carousel rotates.
The atoms comprising the moon, are all moving in concentric circles, or concentric ellipses, about the Earth-moon barycenter, as the moon orbits.
entropic…”Once again, what is your frame of reference?”
Frame of reference is irrelevant wrt to local rotation. If the body is not rotating about a local axis it is not rotating about a local axis in any reference frame.
False. The Earth is not rotating in the reference frame we all use here — one attached to the Earth. (That’s why we see Coriolis forces.)
However, if a body rotates in one inertial reference frame, it rotates in all inertial reference frames. (Rotating frames aren’t inertial reference frames.)
However, if a body rotates, but not on its own axis in one inertial reference frame, it rotates, but not on its own axis in all inertial reference frames.
Eben, in your example, of a friction-less bearing, the horse would only have one vector acting upon its motion. An actual orbiting object has two forces affecting its motion.
You are attempting to complicate a simple situation.
Is a racehorse ACTUALLY rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track?
“Yes”, or “No”. One word answer is all that is necessary. No need for irrelevant and rambling obfuscation.
JDHuffman
“An actual orbiting object has two forces affecting its motion.”
Two forces?
One is gravity, of course.
Atmospheric drag might be regarded as a second force, but is not relevant to the rotation, revolution discussion.
What second force do you have in mind?
Incidentally, orbital mechanics has always been an interest.
I regard Buzz Aldrin’s rules for manoeuvering in orbit as one of the great insights of astronautics.
You may remember, it was summarised by Larry Niven as:-
East takes you out.
Out takes you West.
West takes you in.
In takes you East.
Port and starboard bring you back.
E-man, if you understood orbital motion, you would know the two vectors are due to gravity and the object’s velocity.
JDHuffman
First you were talking about forces, now you are talking about vectors. Make your mind up.
E-man, a force can be represented mathematically by a vector.
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman
Force is mass*acceleration.
Momentum is mass*velocity. Vectors describe the way forces act, but are not themselves the forces. We are quibbling about terminology.
You still havent explained how the forces/vectors acting on an orbiting spear determine its orientation, which way it is pointing.
E-man, to avoid confusion, I struck out all of your superfluous information:
Force is mass*acceleraton.Momentum is mass*velocity. Vectors describe the way forces act, but are not themselves the forces. We are quibbling about terminology.You’re welcome.
Now, for me to educate you, as you’ve requested: “You still haven’t explained how the forces/vectors acting on an orbiting spear determine its orientation, which way it is pointing.”
I need to know your background. That’s why I asked the questions:
Have you ever studied orbital motion?
Have you ever studied vector addition?
Have you ever been to a horserace?
JDHuffman
Yes to all three questions.
I am quite able to understand a scientific explaination of how the forces/vectors acting on an orbiting spear might affect its orientation. I am also quite able to recognise that you have so far been unable to supply such an explaination.
As this conversation continues, my opinion of your scientific acumen is dropping fast. Time to redeem yourself.
E-man, we will start with your belief that the racehorse is rotating on its axis. That is WRONG. So, let’s see if you can understand another example.
A jet airplane flies around the Earth, following the equator. If viewed from outer space, the airplane would appear to be “upside down” for half the orbit.
So, is the airplane ACTUALLY upside down, or is someone unable to understand reality?
entropic…”Momentum is mass*velocity. Vectors describe the way forces act, but are not themselves the forces. We are quibbling about terminology”.
A vector can represent any quantity that has direction. That means force as well as velocity and acceleration.
A quantity without direction is a scalar.
entropic…”Two forces?
One is gravity, of course”.
The other is momentum, which can be regarded as a pseudo-force since it requires an equal and opposite force to stop it over time. It cannot be treated mathematically as a pseudo-force but there are ways to treat it mathematically using vector calculus.
momentum = p = mv = m.ds/dt…where s = distance
force = ma = m.d2s/dt2
Whether you are summing the vectors of force, velocity, or acceleration, you can arrive at a resultant which is the orbit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
‘An actual orbiting object has two forces affecting its motion.’
Every time JD posts about science, he seems to lose a couple of IQ points.
His science IQ is now in the low 70s.
Keep going JD!
Nate, I noticed you were unable to answer the simple question upthread.
That kinda says it all, huh?
More reality for the braindead to deny:
Clear sky directly overhead, many stars visible –> -8.8 F (-22.7 C)
Ground –> 72.5 F (22.5 C)
The sky is NOT warming the surface, again!
JDHuffman
Once again put a thermometer out and measure the actual air temperature around you. It would be much warmer than your minus 8.8 F. The IR is radiated from all around you in this much warmer air. I explained already what you were measuring (basically some random IR hitting your sensor from above, not the actual air temperature that is radiating to the surface). You could not understand the information.
Also no one is claiming the sky is “warming” the surface. The use of the wording is what confuses you so much and there is no way to clear it up with you. You are adamant with your incorrect thought process.
The sky sends down considerably more IR than the much colder space above. This is a fact you do not understand at all. The IR is mostly absorbed by the surface. This is a fact you reject based upon nothing but you blind opinion.
The sky will keep the heated surface (input from solar energy) warmer with this Downwelling IR than without it. Simple and correct. You will not be able to process this. It does not make sense to your simpleton thought process. Too hard for you to process. Also it is rational and logical. Things no available to your mental abilities.
No one can deny better than you, Norman. Great job.
Since you abhor reality, maybe you can help out some of your fellow braindead. They are having a hard time answering the simple question:
Is a racehorse ACTUALLY rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track?
“Yes” or “No” answer only. One word answer is all that is necessary. No need for irrelevant and rambling obfuscation. Pound on your keyboard as much as you want, after a one-word answer.
JDHuffman
That question cannot be answered yes or no, without knowing what frame of reference you are using.
It cannot be answered if you are trying to avoid reality.
A thought experiment.
I mount a compass on my saddle and ride around an oval racetrack.
At the start the compass shows that I am facing and moving North.
Halfway around the first bend I am facing and moving West.
On the back straight I am facing and moving South.
Halfway through the second turn I am facing and moving East.
As I pass my starting point I am once again facing and moving North.
The compass shows that my vector has rotated anticlockwise through 360 degrees. ie the horse has rotated 360 degrees on its vertical axis.
Note that I can now answer “Yes” because I have defined the frame of reference in which the rotation has taken place.
That’s it, E Man, move away from the carousel example and back to a free-roaming horse. Much less cognitive dissonance for you there. Now you can tell yourself that the horse is rotating on its own axis, because it’s not fixed down to anything.
DREMT
“Free roaming horse?”
Is a dressage horse rotating on its axis during a pirouette?
Snapping back from analogies to the reality they are meant to be representing, for a minute:
Does an object changing direction in its orbit relative to the fixed stars necessarily mean axial rotation is taking place?
Or is the change of direction just a part of the “orbital motion”?
(you can snap back to the carousel analogy, and think about the chalk circle, as it “orbits” the center of the carousel, if that helps)
E-man, your horse is changing directions, not rotating on its axis.
But, we’ll mark you down as believing that a racehorse rotates on its axis.
Thanks for responding. The other clowns are afraid.
I am still puzzled by your insistance that an orbiting object must maintain a constant orientation relative to the Earth.
There is no physical reason why it should happen.
The ISS maintains an orientation which allows the solar panels to track the Sun and the cupola to face the Earth. This is by choice and using gyroscopes, not because any natural force causes it.
E-man, an orbiting object, whether natural or manmade, responds to the forces acting on it.
Learn some physics.
…and to continually orient towards the same fixed star, you would need the same.
But we are not talking about that. We are talking about, “what is ‘orbital motion’ without axial rotation”. Is it the left arrows, or the right?
The left diagram shows an object maintaining an orientation tangential to the Earth’s surface. What force causes it to adopt and remain in that orientation?
Left to itself it would point in one direction. A spear pointing at the Sun as it crossed the dawn terminator would still be pointing at the sun as it crossed the sunset terminator.
Yet you insist that a spear which points at the Sun at one point in its orbit would point away from the Sun half an orbit later. You cannot explain why!
E-man, you keep pretending you want to learn physics, but you run away from reality.
Quit running, if you really want to learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367217
“Entropic man says:
July 23, 2019 at 9:14 AM
I am still puzzled by your insistance that an orbiting object must maintain a constant orientation relative to the Earth.”
Gravitation gradient
Google didn’t help.
How about, Gravity-gradient stabilization, wiki,
“Gravity-gradient stabilization (a.k.a. “tidal stabilization”) is a method of stabilizing artificial satellites or space tethers in a fixed orientation using only the orbited body’s mass distribution and gravitational field. The main advantage over using active stabilization with propellants, gyroscopes or reaction wheels is the low use of power and resources.”
And:
“The idea is to use the Earth’s gravitational field and tidal forces to keep the spacecraft aligned in the desired orientation. The gravity of the Earth decreases according to the inverse-square law, and by extending the long axis perpendicular to the orbit, the “lower” part of the orbiting structure will be more attracted to the Earth. The effect is that the satellite will tend to align its axis of minimum moment of inertia vertically.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
Axial rotation is a change in orientation relative to an inertial reference frame. The reference frame or coordinate system is allowed to translate or change position. It’s just not allowed to rotate.
For example, let’s use polar coordinates r and t where r is the radius and t is theta or the angle. If you fix r=0 at the Earth-Moon barycenter and t=0 at the center of the Moon then you will observe the r,t coordinates of a line segment on the Moon as being constant. The problem is that this reference frame isn’t inertial since the t coordinate is tracking the Moon and thus is itself rotating. In fact, it is rotating at the same speed as the orbital angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s relative to the fixed stars.
You can make your coordinate system more inertial by always pointing t=0 to the Sun. This reference frame will yield a rotation rate of the Moon of about 29.5 days per rotation. However, the error here is about +2.2 days because this reference frame is also rotating since the Moon is being pulled around the Sun in a circular orbit.
You can make your coordinate system sufficiently inertial by always pointing t=0 to a fixed position relative to all stars. This reference frame will yield a rotation rate of the Moon of about 27.3 days per rotation.
“Axial rotation is a change in orientation relative to an inertial reference frame.”
Well at least your honest and direct about it. Norman kept telling me that wasn’t his argument further upthread, when it obviously was.
Been dealt with a hundred times already. Scroll up, start at the very top of the comments, re-read.
I think most of the disagreement here is attributed to those in the rotation camp selecting the least special inertial reference frame while those in the no-rotation camp are selecting the most special ( Earth/Moon centric) and most non-inertial reference frame. In fact, in the later case the rotation of the reference frame is selected precisely at 2.66e-6 rad/s relative to the fixed stars to make it appear as if the Moon isn’t rotating. So not only is this reference frame non-inertial it is also wreaks of geocentrism that modern science has worked hard to abandon.
Incorrect. For our actual arguments, scroll up, start at the very top of the comments, re-read. Once you’ve done that, come back and try again, adopting the attitude of one who is here to learn, rather than teach. If you come remotely close to correctly representing our arguments, I will let you know.
DREMT, could you summarize the argument? 1300+ comments is an awful to read. Even assuming I could make it through all of them in a reasonable amount of time (unlikely) I’d still run the risk of misrepresenting the argument due to the interpretation of process of aggregating so many posts into a single argument.
Nope.
bdgwx, the “argument” is about the fact that you clowns cannot answer the simple “yes or no” question: Is a racehorse rotating on its axis as it runs an oval track?
Yes, or no?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
For our actual arguments, scroll up, start at the very top of the comments, re-read.
Look at you, assigning people tasks and things to do.
Yet you complain about being asked simply to define rotation.
I did find this…
DREMT said…”The argument is, and always has been, that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.”
…which is demonstrably false. I even calculated the spin angular velocity for you on a valid inertial reference frame. It is 2.66e-6 rad/s. The reference frame uses polar coordinates with r=0 set at the center of the Moon and t=0 set at a fixed position relative to all stars.
If you disagree then just walk us through how you calculate a spin angular velocity of 0 rad/s. Tell us which inertial reference frame you are using and do the math.
Funny that you didn’t happen to “find” this one, especially considering as how I was replying to you at the time:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367092
DA, it must be frustrating when people don’t explain the basics to you.
But, you could always learn some physics….
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
Yeah, this comment you always points to gets it wrong.
There you wrote, “The Moon completes its orbit without having to rotate at all due to the interaction of its linear momentum and Earths gravity.”
You’re claiming the Moon’s rotation rate is somehow connected to the Earth’s gravitational pull on it.
That’s wrong.
Again, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS HERE.
There is orbiting.
This is lunar rotation.
Orbiting is the center of mass of the Moon traveling around the center of mass of the Earth, as point particles.
Notice this has *nothing to do* with either the spin rate of the Earth or the spin rate of the Moon.
Both those spin rates can take on a continuum of values and orbiting will still occur.
In fact, inhomogeneities in Earth and lunar densities (and tidal frictions on Earth) create torques that REQUIRE both to spin.
Unless a celestial body was exactly radially symmetric, torques from other bodies would create rotation on that celestial body.
It’s impossible for a celestial body not to spin.
And the body would have to be formed in a radially symmetric body as well. That doesn’t happen, and it certainly didn’t happen with the Moon.
“Look at you, assigning people tasks and things to do.”
Not really. I just don’t understand why people have the audacity to arrive late in a discussion and expect people to repeat themselves, or summarize their whole position for them, just because they’re here, and playing dumb. Then if you don’t, they cherry-pick comments and start to work their way in from there.
Incredibly lazy and/or dishonest. Read through the discussion first. It’s not much to ask.
DREMT,
So is the argument what you say? What GR says? Or what JD says? Maybe you guys should convene and present a single cohesive argument?
In the meantime if you disagree with my selection of a reference frame and my calculation of the spin angular velocity of the Moon then please post back with your own work so that we can all review it. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request especially if the goal is to be convincing.
DA, that’s a great example of pseudoscience. One of your best.
I especially liked this: “In fact, inhomogeneities in Earth and lunar densities (and tidal frictions on Earth) create torques that REQUIRE both to spin.”
You would make a great comedy writer.
I meant “…in a radially symmetric FASHION as well…
“But one thing that is worth repeating for you, is that if you think calculations resolve this issue, then you don’t understand the issue.”
“So is the argument what you say? What GR says? Or what JD says? Maybe you guys should convene and present a single cohesive argument?”
So you haven’t read all the comments, but you feel we are not presenting a single cohesive argument? How would you know?
bdgwx, you’re just another sophist aren’t you?
bdgwx wants to see the “work” for the Moon’s angular momentum about its axis.
AM about a solid sphere = Iω = I(0) = 0
Glad to help.
norman…”The sky will keep the heated surface (input from solar energy) warmer with this Downwelling IR than without it”.
Explain the process. You are transferring heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface THAT WARMED IT. That not only contradicts the 2nd law it enables perpetual motion by recycling heat in such a manner as to increase the temperature of the source.
Gordon Robertson
This might be the 100th time I have clearly stated to you (are you that incredibly dense?) that the atmosphere IS NOT TRANSFERRING HEAT to the surface! You are transferring energy. You are transferring considerably more energy from the atmosphere than from space.
I tire of your invalid stupid posts over an over. You reject textbooks and think they are wrong. You will not do any actual experiments. You think you are a god with all knowledge and only your opinions are right.
It is clearly hopeless to communicate with you in any reasonable fashion. You are not even close to smart enough to understand even simple posts and are hopeless if I include math.
Nothing contradicts the actual 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Only your imagined incorrect version is violated.
Go on with your ignorant opinions. You won’t stop giving the same garbage over an over. Like all you phony skeptics. You repeat your nonsense over and over and hope to convince someone other than yourselves you are correct. News for you, you are not at all correct. In fact none of you shyster phonies know anything at all about physics and never will.
That is odd.
Where I am the surface is 23C and rising. One circular region of the sky is at 5000C.
Here the sky is definately warming the surface.
E-man, you have apparently found the Sun.
Now, you can explain to Warmists “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
I think not. The average temperature of the surface is increasing while the average amount of energy coming from the Sun is decreasing.
E-man gets something right: “I think not.”
Robertson
You wrote upthread:
“In the following statement, it is obvious he is not talking about the Moons axis but its external axis in the Earth centre. Newton states, its uniform REVOLUTION about its axis. No one would refer to a local rotation about an axis as a revolution.”
Stop your diversions, and have a look at Newton’s original Latin text stored in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Germany:
https://tinyurl.com/y52msqv7
Do you REALLY thik, Robertson, that a genius like Newton would have written
“Quoniam vero Lunae, circa axem SUUM uniformiter revolventis…”
when in reality he meant “…circa axem Terrae…”
Only people like you are obstinated and stubborn enough to think so. You all belog to the same class: that of the denialists, who WANT that we see the world as THEY view it.
Like the other denialists, you are clearly contradicting Newton here, without having enough courage to clearly formulate it.
Bindidon, did you find another link you can’t understand?
You’re so ignorant of reality you can’t even answer the simple question about the racehorse.
Translate this: Hemrok dyrwexhar ef lydurt incompetent loajve pageaz. Lorp nuvyom tirwhact haddimasc phony.
Robertson [ctnd]
“Newton states, its uniform REVOLUTION about its axis. No one would refer to a local rotation about an axis as a revolution.”
*
This is a translation of another Principia place, still by Andrew Motte:
“Jupiter
with respect to the fixed stars
revolves in 9h 56′, Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. These things appear by the Phaenomena [I hope you at least understand what he means here].
The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 1/2 days; and therefore
with respect to the fixed stars
the sun revolves in about 25 1/2 days.”
Which kind of revolution did Sir Isaac mean here? Does Jupiter revolve about the Sun in 9h 56′, Robertson? And does Venus in about 23h?
That’s great news, Robertson! Please publish it, right now.
JP, I hope you have enough self-control that you won’t let your fanaticism cause you injury.
An interesting paper concerning theoretical argument about tidal locking is this:
Spin-Orbit Coupling in the Earth-Moon System
Kirk T. McDonald
Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
Nov. 2, 1982; updated July 11, 2013
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c93f/fe77d4d118aee7723d1864271845462539e1.pdf
Of course this is not addressed to the toy lovers who prefer to argue with racehorses, coins, cannonballs, etc.
Simply because it is a bit too easy to ask ‘Does the racehorse turm around it axis? Please answer with [yes] or [no]’, or to say ‘Look at my coin example! You MUST see that the coin can’t rotate’, etc.
It is much more difficult to move into the work presented, to read everything and to find out exactly which equations are wrong where, and above all… why.
*
From these toy people I expect nothing else than denialism based on ignorance, which lead into these typical, non-binding sentences like for example:
“… he doesn’t realize the work of Newton debunks both the Moon-axial-rotation and the “tidal locking” nonsense.”
*
The best of all being this:
“But one thing that is worth repeating for you, is that if you think calculations resolve this issue, then you don’t understand the issue.”
Issues that can not be resolved using computations?
That reminds me the time before Galilei and Bruno…
JP, I’m deciding which is funnier, the useless links you find, or your disjointed ramblings.
But putting them together puts you in the pack of contenders for 1st in the clown competition.
Not that I have a favorite….
binny…from your link…”A prominent astronomical fact is that the Moon always shows the same face to the Earth. This means that the Moon rotates once about its axis each Earth month”.
What it really means is that the author is a clown. I fail to understand how someone could state a fact and follow it with a presumption stated as a fact.
The clowns could not answer the simple question. E-man answered it in a way he could back away from later. But none of the other clowns attempted even an eviscerated answer.
The simple question was Is a racehorse ACTUALLY rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track?”
The clowns can’t answer because they are trapped by reality.
If they answer “no”, they will be excommunicated from their false religion.
If they answer “yes”, every sane person will know they are depraved.
It’s a lose-lose for the clowns.
Reality is a bitch that way…..
Yes dummass,
the racehorse spins on it’s axis so it can turn in the turns, down the straight-away it stops spinning.
Bob,
Please don’t diss the dummasses of this world.
You have a point, dummasses don’t go down the backstretch ass first like our homegrown trio plus I see some newcomers.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367559
Both of those are orbiting, but one is rotating and one is not.
You cant even understand what we the spinners, (but not like at a dead show, I’m not that kind of spinner), are arguing.
“Both of those are orbiting, but one is rotating and one is not”
Agreed. Both orbiting, one is orbiting and rotating on its own axis, one is not.
The thing stupid and bob d cannot explain re rotation, is how particles on a horse, moving in parallel paths, can cross over to perform local rotation. Both think the horse has to rotate on a local axis to turn around the curves on the track which reveals a lack of understanding of basic mechanics.
Stupid does not even understand the definition of curvilinear translation. It requires that all particles on a rigid body are moving parallel to their position when they started and that their velocities be the same.
With rectilinear translation, both are obvious, but once rectilinear translation changes to curvilinear translation, as on a track, it’s not so apparent. Stupid gets completely lost with a lack of basic physics and resorts to ad homs because he cannot explain it himself.
If the curved portion of the track can be considered a semi-circle, for convenience, then where the straight portion of the track meets the semi-circle, the curved portion begins.
Anyone who has studied curves in calculus knows that a curve is defined by a tangential line to the curve at any point. The curvature is defined by the slope of the tangent line which is the first derivative of the curve’s equation.
That tangent line can be defined geometrically by fitting a circle to the curve and using the radius of the circle where it meets the curve. At that point, a line perpendicular to the radius is the tangent line.
As the horse transitions from the straight portion of the track onto the curved portion, it begins following a series of straight (tangent) lines. Therefore, at each instant the horse is performing rectilinear translation.
The horse does not bend it’s body to turn around the curve, it is always running straight ahead, albeit with very slight changes in the direction of the tangent line. That motion is the crux of the problem.
At each instant, every part of the horse is moving in a straight line, with all parts moving parallel to each other as at the start of motion.
Now for the same velocity of each part. Since the horse is a rigid body, the angular velocity on the curve must be determined by the change of angle of a radial line at the axis of the semi-circle. That radial line, when passed through the horse, is moving at a uniform speed FOR ALL PARTICLE IN THE BODY.
I have just defined curvilinear translation and there is nothing stupid can say to contest that FACT.
The horse turns due to curvilinear translation, not local rotation, and anyone with a basic understanding of mechanics would see that immediately.
Gordon,
When a racehorse is going through a turn, is it’s center of gravity over it’s hooves?
If it is, then it’s going in a straight line.
If it is not, then it is turning or rotating.
Find some pictures
OK, blob.
I answered it twice and you just asked the same question third time ,
Only in you limited mind a horse on the round racetrack and a horse on a carousel are two different scenarios
eben…”Only in you limited mind a horse on the round racetrack and a horse on a carousel are two different scenarios”
The only difference is that the real horse is powering itself around the track and the wooden horse is being propelled by a turning platform.
As far as local rotation is concerned they are exactly the same. Neither one rotates locally about a local axis.
The rotation must be in reference to the intertial reference frame which is the fixed coordinate system of the race track or fixed ground below the carousel, not to a local rotating reference frame.
Dear Clown,
A racehorse must turn or rotate on its axis in order to keep on the track, otherwise he’ll run off the track at the turns and be a loser, just like you are a loser.
stupid…”A racehorse must turn or rotate on its axis in order to keep on the track…”
You spout this anti-science then accuse me of not understanding curvilinear translation?????
Ideally, the horse is moving around the track on a straight-curved path. After all, the curve on the track is a series of straight, instantaneous, tangential paths. The horse must adjust its direction to stay on the track in the curves.
If it performed local rotation, it would turn off it’s path in a circle. Furthermore, the jockey would have to pull the horse’s head in a circle.
Are you guys all daft???
Ever watched speed skating at the Olympics? They skate madly around a track with no local rotation.
Now switch to the figure skating arena where a skater skates in a curved path around the arena then throws in a toe loop, so that he/she rotates in a complete circle. That is local rotation and here are several examples.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/02/gif-guide-figure-skaters-jumps-olympics/357723/
Do you see a horse doing any of those as it runs a track?
If you answer yes, I’d like to know what you are on.
Ever watched speed skating at the Olympics? They skate madly around a track with no local rotation. [Wrong. The skater has rotated 360 degrees during 1 orbit of the track. You keep ignoring the inertial reference frame. Common mistake for fake engineers]
Now switch to the figure skating arena where a skater skates in a curved path around the arena then throws in a toe loop, so that he/she rotates in a complete circle. That is local rotation and here are several examples.[You keep inventing terms. Your idea of “local rotation” appears to be any type of rotation greater than 1 rotation per orbit (1 loop of the ice rink). But since you are a fake engineer, you do not realize that the skater that performs a curvilinear loop around the skating rink is rotating 360 degrees on his/her own axis per each loop of the ice rink. When the skater performs what you call “local rotation”, the skater is merely rotating more than 1 rotation per orbit of the arena. The problem being that the fake engineer rotates his reference frame at the same angular velocity of the skater, so the skater does not appear to rotate when not performing this “local rotation”. Another common mistake for fake engineers]
Do you see a horse doing any of those as it runs a track? [Yes, The horse rotates 360 degrees on its own axis per one orbit of the track]
If you answer yes, Id like to know what you are on.[What am I on? I am resting on the clear and concise principles of rotational kinematics which you totally ignore, since you are a fake engineer.]
The great fake engineer invents a new kinematic term: “Local Rotation”. The fake engineer is great at coming up with his own personal definitions.
So. O great fake engineer. What is the definition of “local rotation”???? [I already know what your fake definition means, but I want to hear it directly from the horses mouth, or more likely, south end]
Gordon Robertson says:
Ever watched speed skating at the Olympics? They skate madly around a track with no local rotation.
No, they don’t. To skate in a circle the skater can’t skate straight. Instead, every step is slightly inward, creating their rotation while completing the circle.
Gordon,
Since you misuse and abuse kinematic terms, please provide your exact definition of local rotation.
Gordon, the fake engineer, shrieks, “The horse must adjust its direction to stay on the track in the curves!”
Hey Einstein. Adjusting direction is turning or rotating you CLOWN. The inertial reference frame is the fixed non moving track.
And for the 101st time, another REAL (not fake) definition of translation: “the object maintains the same orientation” [http://www.indiana.edu/~sportbm/p391-lectures/linkinemat.pdf]. Does the race horse maintain the same orientation (direction) while running the track?? No! Therefore the racehorse is not performing curvilinear translation.
Let’s assume a circular track because an oval track confuses your fake engineering brain. The race horse rotates 360 degrees on its own axis for every lap.
The fake engineer again shrieks, “After all, the curve on the track is a series of straight, instantaneous, tangential paths!!”
True. But that tangential path is NOT curvilinear translation, you fake. With curvilinear translation, there is NO change of direction/orientation. If a horse started facing east at the starting line in the 12:00 noon position, curvilinear translation would require the horse to remain facing east throughout the race. That does not happen.
Because, fake engineer, when an object like a horse, or race car performs an orbit of the track, it is either in a state of curvilinear translation, or in a state of rotating on its own axis. There is no other option. Since the horse is not in a state of curvilinear translation, it is rotating on its own axis. And it rotates once per lap, and the same side of the horse always faces the center of orbit, just like the moon.
Any non fake engineer could figure this out with pure common sense.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367559
Wow…I’m late to this party..but it has been quite entertaining to read the duped fake mooners…. yeah the moon landing was real. Just too much real evidence that proves this out…and just no real evidence that disproves it…. the best RW can do is offer inferences and personal opinion..based of of his claimed extensive research… However there are no photos …no videos of any evidence that offers evidence of it being faked…. heck… even the thousands of folks that were involved in the landing …not one.. has come forth to offer evidence… pretty odd if it was indeed staged… in fact … just too odd.
As for the moon rotating… no the moon does not rotate at all in relation to the earth …that is a fact. in fact if one just considers the two bodies alone, only one actually rotates (spins).
Nope,
The moon spins about once a month, and the earth spins about once a day,
bob d…”The moon spins about once a month”
I am waiting for an explanation of how that is accomplished while the same side of the Moon faces the Earth throughout the orbit.
It easy to say it and quite another to prove it.
If you were coordinated enough to do it with coins you would see.
Apparently your dexterity is -25 on the Dungeons and Dragons scale.
bob d…”If you were coordinated enough to do it with coins you would see”.
If you were not so obtuse you’d see that all points on a coin being slide around another, while keeping a mark on one coin against the perimeter of the other, must travel in concentric circles. As such. it is impossible for any point on the coin to rotate about the axis.
You fail to grasp the difference between orbital mechanics related to gravity and the angular momentum required for a body to rotate locally about its axis.
Bob, you are getting confused here…. when I stated that ‘in relation to the earth’ it does not spin… and when considering only those two bodies one does spin…the other does not. your explanation to try to make the moon spin you have to pull you reference outward another layer – hence the fact that the sun shines on all sides of the moon…. since my comment was only about the reference points of two bodies (the earth and the moon) you can clearly see your problem here – one of these bodies is always facing the other, while the other body is constantly presenting a different facade …ie spins.
Gordon,
Try the following experiment.
Take a rubber band and cut it so it’s just one piece no longer in a circle.
Tape one end to your wrist and one end to a lollipop.
Place a basketball on the ground.
Keeping one face of the lollipop always pointing to the basketball, move the lollipop in circles around the basketball.
After a few revolutions, look at the rubber band, if it is twisted, it’s like the moon rotating, if it is not then it’s like the moon is not rotating.
You can do that even though your dexterity is – 25
OK, blob.
So you tried the experiment then?
I’m afraid you are another one like David.
so you are against experimentation
If you say so, blob.
Gordon,
You are twisting the coin as you slide it around.
Your vision is also -25 on the dungeons and dragons scale.
You can’t see what is obviously right in front of you.
Gordons moved on downthread, blob.
Gordon Robertson says:
bob dThe moon spins about once a month
I am waiting for an explanation of how that is accomplished while the same side of the Moon faces the Earth throughout the orbit.
It happens because the Moon’s angular velocity of orbiting is the same as the Moon’s angular velocity of spin.
In fact, if the Moon wasn’t rotating we wouldn’t always see the same side of it.
Thought experiment: What would you change about the Earth, while keeping it its same orbit around the Sun,, if you wanted it to always show the same face to the Sun?
In fact, if the Moon was rotating on its own axis, we wouldn’t always see the same side of it.
Not if it is spinning at the same rate it is revolving, then you would only see the one side.
Cassini figured this out a long time ago.
So by “revolving”, you would have to be referring to the motion HGS describes as “curvilinear translation”.
Not necessarily,
Revolving could be like the Moon revolves around the earth or how the earth revolves around the sun.
The amount of axial spinning being independent of the revolving bit.
So it could be other than curvilinear translation.
Yes, necessarily. Since we both agree that there are two separate and independent motions, “orbiting/revolving” and “axial rotation”, as you state the moon is doing both, simultaneously, it necessarily means that your definition of “orbiting/revolving” must be “curvilinear translation” as HGS defines it.
No,
Like I said, the rate of revolution can be different from the rate of rotation, then it would not be curvilinear translation.
Two separate things
As I said, and I will repeat it, as it seems you don’t understand my position, or are just a dumb ****, revolution and rotation are independent.
Do you understand what independent means, two things that have nothing to do with each other.
Yes, revolution and rotation are independent.
I’m sorry for your failure to understand today. Perhaps you will have better luck tomorrow.
Perhaps this amendment will help you on your journey of self-improvement:
“Yes, necessarily. Since we both agree that there are two separate and independent motions, “orbiting/revolving” and “axial rotation”, as you state the moon is doing both, simultaneously, and at the same rate, it necessarily means that your definition of “orbiting/revolving” must be “curvilinear translation” as HGS defines it.”
No,
Is the earth revolving around the sun in curvilinear translation?
You keep missing the point. Revolution and axial rotation are independent motions. Agreed. But once you remove all the axial rotation/s from the orbiting object, what do you have left? What is the individual motion “orbiting without axial rotation”? What is “revolution alone, without axial rotation”?
Remove all the axial rotations the Earth makes during its orbit around the sun.
Remove the axial rotation you think the Moon makes during its orbit around the Earth.
If you’re being consistent, you should have the same motion left over. According to your argument, you have the motion HGS describes as curvilinear translation.
The thing is how can you remove all the rotation from an object?
Then you get the image on the right, still orbiting but not rotating.
And curvilinear translation and orbital motion are not to be confused and considered the same thing.
They are different.
So what was your point, that they are the same?
No they are not.
Get with the program.
“Then you get the image on the right, still orbiting but not rotating.”
The image on the right, yes, the motion HGS describes as “curvilinear translation”.
I get it that you just want to argue with me for no reason, or perhaps because previous discussions have made it so that you are now unable to concede even the slightest point. It’s OK, I won’t take it too seriously.
Like I am taking you seriously, really, DREMPT
not
“You can’t be serious”
by some stupid tennis player
If you say so, blob.
And it’s the image on the right which you say has the arrows rotating counterclockwise yet they stay pointed in the same direction the whole time.
I don’t think that’s right DREMPT.
Something pointing in the same direction can’t be rotating.
The image on the right is what you have to think “revolution” is. From the sound of things you don’t really like having to think that. It’s OK, if you want a more logical definition of “revolution”, you only have to change sides…
Martin…”As for the moon rotating no the moon does not rotate at all in relation to the earth that is a fact. in fact if one just considers the two bodies alone, only one actually rotates (spins)”.
Thanks for the input Martin. We are having difficulty convincing the great unwashed who are all climate alarmists.
Poor Gordon, the fake engineer, still can’t figure out what curvilinear translation is. He makes up his own personal definition.
Why is this important? If you don’t understand translation, you won’t understand rotation as well. Gordon understands neither. It’s quite an embarrassment.
stupid…”Why is this important? If you dont understand translation, you wont understand rotation as well. Gordon understands neither. Its quite an embarrassment”.
I doubt if you’ve been to school let alone studied engineering physics.
Gordon,
I’ve posted multiple on-line kinematic reference notes from various prestigious universities, and ALL their definitions of curvilinear translation are contrary to your idea of curvilinear translation. EVERY ONE. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Any real engineer would realize your mistake. You are a fake.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367559
Child-gone-stupid, Gordon has tried to help you numerous times. You still don’t get it. “Orbiting” is NOT described by “curvilinear translation”.
You are a child.
2 of the stooges try to cover for the third stooge, Gordon, but fail miserably and try to deflect and change the subject.
An orbit is a path, clown.
…and yet you know full well what we are talking about when we say “orbiting” or “orbital motion”. So why pretend otherwise every time? The hope that we will be too bored of explaining ourselves to respond?
Dear Martin,
I suggest you send a email to NASA explaining their moon rotation mistake. Maybe publish a scientific paper as well.
stupid…”Dear Martin,
I suggest you send a email to NASA explaining their moon rotation mistake.”
While you’re at it Martin, ask them why they allow NASA GISS to spread such utter propaganda about anthropogenic warming.
The alarmists around here are so gullible they accept everything GISS preaches.
HGS,
You wrote –
“I suggest you send a email to NASA explaining their moon rotation mistake.”
It might do no good. People have died because NASA preferred fiction to fact.
“The Commission found that as early as 1977, NASA managers had not only known about the flawed O-ring, but that it had the potential for catastrophe.” Seven people died.
Another example of NASA nonsense –
“As you might expect from the name, the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse!”
Only in the dreams of NASA employees. Why would anybody bother wasting their time on an organisation that apparently thinks Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist?
Keep dreaming.
Cheers.
Martin
“As for the moon rotating… no the moon does not rotate at all in relation to the earth …that is a fact. in fact if one just considers the two bodies alone, only one actually rotates (spins).”
Wow wow!
Like Robertson, you seem to need a lesson from … Isaac Newton.
In his Principia, he wrote (here is a piece of his original text in Latin, first published in 1687):
“PROPOSITIO XVII. THEOREMA XV.
Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, & librationem lunae ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.
Patet per motus legem 1. & Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Lib. I. Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, mars horis 24. 39′, venus horis 23 circiter, terra horis 23. 56′, sol diebus 25 & luna diebus 27. 7 hor. 43′.
Haec ita se habere ex phaenomenis manifestum est. Maculae in corpore solis ad eundem situm in disco solis redeunt diebus 27
circiter, respectu terrae ; ideoque respectu fixarum sol revolvitur diebus 25 circiter.
Quoniam vero lunae circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est: huius facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis eius semper respiciet quamproxime & propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviab it hinc inde a terra.”
Do you need a translation into English, Martin?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367559
Bindidon – thanks for the post and Latin version – Please allow me to post a simple thought example – whereby only two bodies are involved… Body E(not tidal locked to Body M, and presenting an ever moving facade to Body M) and Body M (tidal locked to Body E) – Each body is connected at it’s center by the newest and most fantastically detectable silly string invention ever made, …and only breaks after it’s original length has exceeded appox 3 times it’s original length. Which body (Body Earth or Body Moon) would have been wrapped up in this silly string and which body would have none wrapped around it? after one month?
JDHuffman and DREMT are in the woods together on a hike.
JDHuffman walks ahead on the path. He stops and rotates one half circle. Now he faces DREMT and walks back. I guess in this case even the lunatics on this blog might accept that.
Now JDHuffman walks ahead again and does not rotate this time. He just walks backward. Now without the slightest rotation on JDHuffman’s part he walks backwards past DREMT and first DREMT saw Huffman backside, now as Huffman shuffles backwards past DREMT, DREMT sees Huffman’s front side. No rotation sees both sides. How?
Now if JDHuffman slowly rotates as he is shuffling backwards to DREMT he can always keep his backside facing toward DREMT. Without rotation he won’t be able to.
Also JDHuffman in confusion thinks a horse can go into a curve without turning (rotating) its body. Must be magic or total illogical thought process.
Now also JDHuffman walks ahead but instead of stopping and rotating to face DREMT, he walks in a half circle rotating toward DREMT. He is rotating on his axis with each step. I guess if you move in a circle it is not considered rotation on axis even though the process is exactly the same, the feet must turn and rotate the body in both cases. Logic and rational thought are the key.
Rotation on an Axis does not require any other body. It does not matter if a viewer on the Earth sees the same side of the Moon. Rotation on an axis will take place if nothing else around. You only need to draw an axis through the middle of the object. If all the material of the body rotate around the axis it is rotating.
The Moon rotates on its axis as it has a night and day. One complete rotation on its axis is how long it takes to complete this cycle.
All other arguments from the irrational, unscientific posters that torture this blog are pointless. Simple valid tests do not convince the three stooges of this blog.
JDHuffman (Moe) arrogant but stupid as can be
Gordon Robertson (Larry) acts smart but is an idiot
DREMT (Curly) goofy as can be but loyal to Moe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kGeQCQ1PE4
norman…”He stops and rotates one half circle”.
Norman will do anything to avoid the basics of physics. He even changes the 2nd law to suit his pseudo-science.
I see why catastrophic warming/climate change is so popular. there are a lot of brain-dead people out there.
Curly is one of my favourite comedians, BTW. Nyuck, nyuck. It takes great talent to ACT the dummy. You alarmists are not acting, you are all dummies.
Gordon Robertson
Sorry Gordon you are not Curly. You are tho only one making up your own version of the 2nd Law. You don’t understand real physics so you make up your own stupid version and tell me I a dummy. I can read and understand textbook physics. You cannot.
Again for you (which does not matter you don’t understand it anyway or will not accept it).
For you: “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
You are too dense to understand it. The only dummy here is you and your stupid unscientific buddies.
Basically you are a clueless crackpot that pretends to have studied actual college physics but you don’t understand Inverse Square Law. You can’t do or understand even simple math. You show no evidence that you were able to pass any science course. I think you are just a phony crackpot.
Gordon Robertson
The big problem is not that you are phony and pretend you studied physics. The big problem is you lack critical thinking skills that are required for science. Rational and logical thought process.
The Sun is the fixed object in our Solar System. The Moon has a day and night cycle. It is rotating on its axis by the fact it experiences a day and night cycle. It does not matter if it does not appear to rotate with respect to a dweller on Earth. You can drive in a car and it appears you are stationary and all the objects in your view are moving.
The fact is the Moon rotates on its axis or it has no day/night cycle. You can’t understand this no matter how many attempts are made to reveal this to you.
I know Moe will never be able to understand this and DREMT will only accept it if Moe does so that is never. I am not sure where Larry will end up. I don’t know how crackpots process information. It is not by logic so you may come up with some other crackpot idea to explain the Moon’s day/night cycle. Who knows how a crackpot mind works. Only one thing identifies a crackpot. Einstein was wrong (you have to ignore vase amounts of valid experimental results, which you do) and you are smarter than all scientists combined. They are all wrong but a simpleton like you is totally correct on all matters science. But you won’t even do a simple experiment on anything but you are right anyway.
Day/night cycle is not a product of an orbiting planet or moon. It only takes place when a planet or moon rotates on its axis. Different rates of rotation produce different day/night cycle times.
Get over it Gordon. You don’t have a clue.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367559
I seldom read all of Norman’s ramblings because he just repeats the same nonsense over and over, sprinkling in his insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations. But, sometimes he gets really funny:
Norman claims: “The Sun is the fixed object in our Solar System.”
Estimates are that the Sun is moving at about half a million miles per hour! Norman doesn’t even understand his own pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
this debate is settled very easily ,
simply google “moon does not rotate”
you will not find a single claim that moon does not rotate on its axes, only explanations it rotates on its axes at the same rate it orbits around the earth.
It is only a debate because JDHuffman is an Eartflatter troll.
The flat earth debates never end either, despite the fact BOTH sides know perfectly well the earth is round
eben…”simply google moon does not rotate
you will not find a single claim that moon does not rotate on its axe”
All that proves is what I have long suspected, that Google is a useless source of information.
The average person when asked will likely claim the Sun rises in the morning, travels across our sky, then sets in the evening. In their minds, the Sun is orbiting the Earth.
Even Feynman could not explain time in a lecture. Rather than reach the obvious conclusion, that humans invented time, he fumbled with the explanation.
He did acknowledge that the second is defined as 1/86,400th of an Earth rotation. That means time is absolute, yet he later goes on to defend time dilation.
I admired Feynman and still do. However, even the best in science get it wrong at times.
I was reading a text on Mechanics today, related physics. The author murdered time and time dilation. He claimed a GPS system has different time on the satellite than on the surface stations because time is different in a moving body.
Hilarious. Time is different on a satellite because the sat uses an atomic clock set to a totally different time system than is used on the surface. Both systems must be synchronized hence the time correction.
He claimed a GPS system has different time on the satellite than on the surface stations because time is different in a moving body.
That’s true, and has been known for 114 years, first deduced by Einstein. And it’s been measured many times, as in the decay of muons that enter the atmosphere. But it’s also been measured directly: in 1971 two scientists flew atomic clocks around the world in a commercial airplane:
“In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Gordon won’t be able to point to an experiment or observation that says otherwise.
DA, did the commercial airliner fly upside-down?
You MUST claim that it was flying upside-down, part of the trip, to be consistent with your pseudoscience.
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
“DA, did the commercial airliner fly upside-down?”
No, it kept its underside toward the Earth surface, to do that the commercial airliner rotated once on its own internal axis during the single orbit on an external axis around the central object, just like a race horse, the moon and a toy train.
JD, please stop being a dummy.
fluffballl, you are trapped by your pseudoscience.
You “see” the racehorse rotating on its axis (relative to the stars), but you don’t “see” the blue jet flying upside-down (relative to the stars).
What a tangled web you’ve woven, huh?
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
Yes JD, you’ve got it now, the blue jet shown rotated once on its own internal axis during the single orbit on an external axis around the central green object, just like a race horse, the moon and a toy train.
JD, please start referring to this cartoon.
I’ve got it, but you’re still confused fluffball.
There is only ONE motion, “orbiting”. The blue jet is not “rotating on its ‘internal’ axis”!
It’s the same motion as a racehorse, the Moon, and a toy train on a circular track.
And, I’m glad you like the blue jet graphic. If I ever forget to link to it, just remind me.
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
“The blue jet is not “rotating on its ‘internal’ axis”!”
The way it’s drawn the blue jet is rotating on its own axis once per orbit JD. 1/4 turn at a time 4 times, just like a racehorse despite your abuse of typed words, your eyes do not lie.
JD and DREMT, keep referring to GKJ. Finally JD draws a decent cartoon. I knew JD could do so, took a little thinking but JD finally got it right.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gbaikie,DREMT
“gbaikie says:
July 23, 2019 at 10:42 AM
Entropic man says:
July 23, 2019 at 9:14 AM
I am still puzzled by your insistance that an orbiting object must maintain a constant orientation relative to the Earth.
Gravitation gradient
Google didnt help.
How about, Gravity-gradient stabilization, wiki,”
God, the Socratic method is slow! I spent most of yesterday prodding DREMT and JDH to mention this.
In summary, the gravity gradient effect causes a torque, a turning moment which rotates an asymmetric spacecraft or two tethered masses. This rotates the spacecraft until its long axis point towards the centre of the Earth.
If the torque then stopped, the spacecraft would point at the horizon 1/4 orbit later and vertically upwards half an orbit later.
To maintain that vertical orientation the torque must be continuous.
The gravity gradient is continuously rotating the spacecraft at a rate of 360 degrees of rotation for each revolution in its orbit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367559
E-man stumbled into some more pseudoscience he can’t understand.
What a hoot!
The Moon/axial-rotation issue provides and understanding of why the AGW hoax has lasted so long. Both the Moon and the simple racehorse have the same orbital motion. Neither has axial rotation. So, what do the “Spinners” do? They claim the horse is “rotating on its axis”, because you can see him turning! Yep, they actually believe changing directions is rotating on an axis!
Adding to the humor, Eben has even done a “Google search”, and finds all of Institutionalized Pseudoscience claims the Moon has axial rotation! He probably did the search on his “smart” phone….
The issue clearly demonstrates the cult mentality of the uneducated masses. They can’t face reality, so they resort to juvenile tactics. Nothing new.
Very few would answer the simple “yes or no” question: Is the racehorse ACTUALLY rotating on its axis. If they answer “yes”, they make themselves look ignorant and stupid. If the answer “no”, they are admitiing Institutionalized Pseudoscience is wrong.
Pseudoscience is so easy to bust, but that doesn’t mean the braindead will leave their false religion. That’s why this is so much fun.
Here’s another question for the “Spinners”: Is the blue jet ACTUALLY upside-down at any point in its orbit around the green planet?
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
Reality is a bitch for uneducated children, illiterate typists, and braindead cultists.
‘ Both the Moon and the simple racehorse have the same orbital motion. Neither has axial rotation.’
This is truthy but not facty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
‘the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.’
“Both the Moon and the simple racehorse [and the blue jet] have the same orbital motion. Neither has axial rotation.”
Reality is a bitch for uneducated children, illiterate typists, and braindead cultists.
JD,
If the Moon was orbiting on a horse race track oval, would it be turning on the straight portions of the track?
Or would it only be turning on the curved parts, like the horse?
“Both the Moon and the simple racehorse [and the blue jet] have the same orbital motion. None of them exhibits axial rotation.”
Reality is a bitch for uneducated children, illiterate typists, and braindead cultists.
Illiterate typists do abound, but your eyes do not lie; GKJ cartoon accurately shows blue jet axial rotation and orbiting about another axis (green object) just like the moon, racehorse, toy train.
Good job JD, more please.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Robertson
Text: “A prominent astronomical fact is that the Moon always shows the same face to the Earth. This means that the Moon rotates once about its axis each Earth month”
1. “What it really means is that the author is a clown. ”
*
As usual: there only one clown here, and that’s you, Robertson.
2. “I fail to understand how someone could state a fact and follow it with a presumption stated as a fact.”
Only ignorant clowns like you think this be a ‘presumption’. One more time, you need a lesson by Sir Isaac.
From his book
Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica
“PROPOSITIO XVII. THEOREMA XV.
Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, & librationem lunae ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.”
Translated into English, the sentence reads as follows:
“The diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
Glad to help.
*
Sir Isaac has understood all what you would never. Unlike you, he had interest in discovering new things rather than to stay on some egocentric narrative, as you do all the time.
*
He unfortunately could not give the mathematical proof for the longitudinal libration’s origin. That was done by Lagrange and Laplace.
About hundred pages of differential equations were needed to fix the stuff.
Great news
Sir Isaac Newton has been a specialist in Institutionalised Pseudoscience.
But chhht! Top secret…
More facts for clowns to deny:
Overhead blue sky –> -15.8 F (-26.6 C)
Ground –> 70.8 F (21.5 C)
That mysterious GHE sure knows how to hide….
(On a side note, when I recently put out some other IR thermometer readings, typist Norman said they were invalid. He said you can’t take readings with a handheld IR thermometer. Then, he linked to a photo of someone taking readings with the exact IR thermometer I use! Poor Norman, he never gets it right.)
Same old, same old. Ultimately it always comes down to:
You think a change in orientation of an object, wrt to an inertial reference frame = axial rotation.
You people just cannot understand that we are saying the change in orientation is simply a part of “orbital motion”, and axial rotation is separate and independent of that motion.
Nothing to do with “reference frames”. Nothing to do with “strict kinematic definitions of curvilinear translation”, etc.
Just this:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
We are arguing that “orbital motion” is as per the arrows on the left. The “Spinners” argue that “orbital motion” is as per the arrows on the right. We explain why we go for the arrows on the left:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
…whereas those like HGS, who bang on about how the arrows on the right are in “curvilinear translation”, as per the “strict kinematic definitions”, kind of help make the point for us. It means your concept of “revolution”, of “orbital motion”, is based on looking at it like it’s a drawing of an orbit on the screen, or on a piece of paper. No consideration of the forces involved. No consideration of what the word “revolution” even implies.
“Revolution” implies rotation. Yet an object rotating about a central point, always presents the same face to that central point, as it rotates. An object rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, presents the same face to the Earth as it rotates, like the moon does. So “revolution” actually implies the opposite of what you want it to. It aligns with the way we look at it.
This leaves you people in a state of cognitive dissonance. You want to use the word “revolution” for “orbital motion”. But you know it contradicts the fact that you see “orbital motion” as “curvilinear translation”, and not a rotation about a central point.
The revolution is that “revolution” actually means revolution! Not “curvilinear translation”, as you define it.
DREMT
To be honest: I don’t understand the “curvilinear translation” stuff. I don’t need it.
But as far as
” You want to use the word ‘revolution’ for ‘orbital motion’ ”
is concerned, please look at Newton’s words:
“Patet per motus legem 1. & Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Lib. I. Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, mars horis 24. 39′, venus horis 23 circiter, terra horis 23. 56′, sol diebus 25 & luna diebus 27. 7 hor. 43′.
Haec ita se habere ex phaenomenis manifestum est. Maculae in corpore solis ad eundem situm in disco solis redeunt diebus 27
circiter, respectu terrae ; ideoque respectu fixarum sol revolvitur diebus 25 circiter.
Quoniam vero lunae circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est: huius facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis eius semper respiciet quamproxime & propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviab it hinc inde a terra.
You clearly see that he uses ‘revolvere’ for ‘to rotate’: in the latter case, for tghe Moon, he adds ‘about its own axis’, manifestly to avoid being misunderstood by people thinking he means ‘to orbit’.
As far as the field of astronomy is concerned, “revolution” is the correct word to use for “orbiting”.
But thanks for the irrelevant and erroneous nitpick and inevitable tie-in to your ongoing obsession with Newton’s words.
Bindidon, if you wanted to be honest, you would admit that Newton was consistently referring to “relative to the stars”.
But, pseudoscience is not about honesty, is it?
DREMT & Huffman
1. Thus one of the greatest scientists of the last 500 years used an incorrect wording, be it
– for the planets orbiting the sun but rotating about their axis
– for the sun rotating about its axis (no idea what it exactly orbits)
– for the moon orbiting Earth but rotating about its axis.
But in some sense you are right: the English word for ‘revolvere’ is ‘rotate’.
2. Obsession? You, DREMT, speak about ‘obsession’ ? You, Huffman and Robertson are obsessed to demonstrate, using trivial and useless examples like racehorses, coins and cannonballs, that Newton had it wrong (but without writing that explicitely, of course), or, alternatively, that everybody misinterprets him. Ha!
3. All astronomers explain and calculate ‘relative to the stars’. Because thy are the only fixed points!
#2
As far as the field of astronomy is concerned, “revolution” is the correct word to use for “orbiting”.
But thanks for the irrelevant and erroneous nitpick and inevitable tie-in to your ongoing obsession with Newton’s words.
“Revolution” means movement about an axis. It can pertain to orbiting, and it can also pertain to a body’s spin rate.
As far as the field of astronomy is concerned, “revolution” is the correct word to use for “orbiting”. Look it up.
Not that it really makes any difference to my point.
Prove it with links.
Google “revolution astronomy”, and read a link. What is wrong with you?
The first Google response:
“The definition of a revolution is the movement of one object around a center or another object”
https://www.yourdictionary.com/revolution
See that “around a center?
Try not to be confused by the colloquial usage of the term.
Try this:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
By those definitions, the Earth orbits and rotates as it goes around the Sun, and the Moon orbits and rotates as it goes around the Earth.
Good.
From your thoughtco link:
“Rotation usually refers to something rotating on its axis.
Revolution usually refers to something orbiting something else (like Earth around the Sun).”
Brilliant!!
Rotation usually refers to something rotating.
Lovely.
I wish I had said that.
Not going to acknowledge you were wrong, then.
Not one of the nonrotators has defined “rotation” or specified how they would determine if a celestial body is spinning/rotating. Without that no progress can be made.
DREMT won’t even try. That’s telling.
How about, everything in our galaxy is rotating but not everything in our galaxy is spinning on it’s axis.
What celestial body in the galaxy is not spinning?
They are spinning like clothes in the spin cycle.
But topic is spinning on their axis.
What does “topic is spinning on their axis” mean????
It’s not understandable English.
David, please stop trolling.
Everything has been explained at great length, to the extent that a child could understand.
Yet David still doesn’t. That’s telling.
Do you think you’re going to convince anyone by insults?
Convince me by logic and physics. So far you have failed to do that, and I’ve told you what’s wrong with your arguments.
It is a fact that your comments demonstrate that you do not understand what we’re explaining to you. Not that you understand and disagree, but that you don’t understand.
Then point out the flaws in my arguments.
Then demonstrate understanding. Other people here understand our arguments, but disagree. Get up to speed with them. Why should we have to waste our time endlessly re-explaining things to people that refuse to try to understand!?
What a goofy answer. You’re simply declaring you are right and you won’t look at counterarguments until I agree you’re right.
Stop playing games.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367771
DA, when you clowns can’t correctly answer the direct question about the racehorse, then you are incapable of understanding anything more advanced, like “orbital motion”.
Learn some physics.
It is really amazing for me to read swentences like
“But thanks for the irrelevant and erroneous nitpick and inevitable tie-in to your ongoing obsession with Newtons words.”
I after all do nothing else than to contradict, using Science (yes: here is a majuscule needed), made by a relevant scientist, simple-minded thoughts written by people who lack any scientific proof for what they pretend all the time.
The very best is that they could not explain, using Science, why Newton’s words are here an ‘irrelevant and erroneous nitpick’.
I go now out of this boring, prepubertarian theater.
After all: does it really matter, if thoroughly scienceless people like DREMT, Huffman, Robertson and Flynn keep the upper hand on this Moon discussion on this blog by endlessly repeating their nonsense?
No. Non. Nein.
Bindidon, since by your own admission you don’t understand HGS’s definition of “curvilinear translation”, you admit that you didn’t understand my comment. Since you didn’t understand it, it’s a job to know how you can criticize it.
You’re leaving the discussion. OK then, bye. Don’t bump your head on the way out.
DREMT
I admit that I should have anticipated your dishonest reaction, and should have written instead:
I dont understand the need for this curvilinear translation stuff.
A fine discussion partner never would have misused my wrong wording.
OK then, bye indeed. But…
“Dont bump your head on the way out.”
indicates me that you wholly misunderstood how I intend ‘to leave’ a prepubertarian theater.
You said:
“To be honest: I don’t understand the “curvilinear translation” stuff. I don’t need it.”
And you accuse me of being dishonest for interpreting it the way anybody would. The way you’ve written it. Meanwhile you accused me of saying that Newton’s words were an irrelevant an erroneous nitpick, when I was referring to your comment, and not Newton’s words.
Now I am meant to understand that by saying you were leaving, you didn’t intend to indicate you were leaving.
“OK, Bindidon”.
”
Everything has been explained at great length, to the extent that a child could understand.
Yet David still doesnt”
“thanks for the irrelevant and erroneous nitpick and inevitable tie-in to your ongoing obsession”
” pseudoscience is not about honesty,”
What it really means is that the author is a clown.
“a lot of brain-dead people out there.”
I note that the rotation deniers have resorted to insult. By Debating Society rules they are disqualified.
Debate over; the rotators won.
☺️
Talk about being blind to the behaviour of your fellow commenters…
You’ve given up physics here and are resorting to insults.
One of the “rotators” has called themselves “HuffmanGoneStupid”. Have you ever read one of Norman’s comments? bobdroege’s? Or even Bindidon’s?
Get some perspective, David.
Doing so yourself doesn’t make it right — insults show you have given up on describing physics.
Why won’t you specify how to determine if a celestial body is rotating? It’s the most fundamental question here.
Then I guess the “rotators” have given up on describing physics.
Once you have demonstrated that you understand what we are explaining to you, we can talk further. It’s on you to get up to speed.
DA, quit trying to act like you are an unbiased referee. You are as slanted and biased as they come.
That, plus the fact that you can’t understand the relevant physics, make your distracting questions and comments easily ignorable.
Nothing new.
DREMT: Again you declined to specify how to determine if a celestial body is rotating or not.
Third time now, I believe. How come?
Once you have demonstrated that you understand what we are explaining to you, we can talk further. It’s on you to get up to speed.
This message will be repeated until you stop responding, or demonstrate understanding.
I understand. And I understand that your explanations are wrong.
So how does one determine if a celestial body is rotating about its polar axis?
#2
Once you have demonstrated that you understand what we are explaining to you, we can talk further. It’s on you to get up to speed.
This message will be repeated until you stop responding, or demonstrate understanding.
I understand. I understand that you’re wrong.
Now do you want to discuss the science, or post more vapid comments that contribute nothing to the discussion topic?
#3
Once you have demonstrated that you understand what we are explaining to you, we can talk further. It’s on you to get up to speed.
This message will be repeated until you stop responding, or demonstrate understanding.
If you have nothing new to contribute to the argument, then shut up and leave the comment section to those who do.
#4
Once you have demonstrated that you understand what we are explaining to you, we can talk further. It’s on you to get up to speed.
This message will be repeated until you stop responding, or demonstrate understanding.
‘Once you have demonstrated that you understand what we are explaining to you, we can talk further. Its on you to get up to speed.’
In my experience he will never answer the question, since he has no idea. He is just obfuscating here.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Once you have demonstrated that you understand what we are explaining to you, we can talk further. Its on you to get up to speed.
This is the answer of someone who very much wants to avoid answering objections and questions.
#5
Once you have demonstrated that you understand what we are explaining to you, we can talk further. It’s on you to get up to speed.
This message will be repeated until you stop responding, or demonstrate understanding.
I am pulling this comment out of the thread above so it is more generally reviewed and responded to in kind – …………..
Please allow me to post a simple thought example whereby only two bodies are involved Body E(not tidal locked to Body M, and presenting an ever moving facade to Body M) and Body M (tidal locked to Body E) Each body is connected at its center to the other body by the newest and most fantastically detectable and stretchable
silly string invention ever made, and only breaks after its original length has exceeded appox 3 times its original length. Which body (Body Earth or Body Moon) would have been wrapped up in this silly string and which body would have none wrapped around it? after one month?
If only one body has been wrapped up in this string would that not offer proof of spin of only one body? I get it that some might object since it is known that the moon orbits the earth so this might appear to be a flawed example but that can be solved by allowing the string to never break and only stretch forever. …if Body M actually rotates on it’s axis(spins) some string should wrap around it correct?…like Body E.
martin (are you the same Martin as above?)
Could you please publish a really readable version of this comment?
This one shows as if you had drunk a bottle of wine before editing.
Thanks in advance.
binny…”Could you please publish a really readable version of this comment?
This one shows as if you had drunk a bottle of wine before editing.”
I had no problem reading it. Then again, your a German who speaks French.
And here I thought Canadians were always good, decent people.
David, please stop trolling.
Martin
You have chosen the same frame of reference as the lunar rotation deniers, in which the moon does not rotate relative to the line between the centre of the Earth and the centre of the Moon. Using that frame of reference the Moon does not retate.
However, there are other frames of reference.
Imagine that another similar string joins the Moon and the Sun. The surface of the Moon goes through 13 day/night cycles each year. In one month the Moon makes just over one rotation and wraps itself in one loop of Moon/Sun string.
Now the question is Which string is correct?
Is it the Earth/Moon string which shows no Moon rotation or the Earth/Sun string which shows that the Moon rotates?
The answer ,of course, is that both are correct. It depends on your frame of reference.
The Moon rotation deniers insist that the only valid frame of reference is the Earth/Moon axis, the only frame of reference in which rotation does not occur.
The rest of us look at other frames of reference, all of which show a rotating moon. Ultimately this is not an argument about the rotation of the Moon, it is an argument about how you choose frames of reference.
Incorrect, as previously explained.
Select a point on the Moon, on its equator, for simplicity. It lies in an (x,y) plane. At time t=0 is directly faces the Earth; it’s the closest Moon point to the Earth at that time.
What equation f(x,y,t) specifies its position in space for all times t?
DA found another way to confuse “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”.
DA, why do you oppose reality?
entropic…”Using that frame of reference the Moon does not retate.
However, there are other frames of reference”.
A frame of reference is a specified coordinate system. Local rotation about an axis is not affected by the definitions, only by the number of radians a radial line on the body rotates about an axis.
The body is either rotating about a local axis or it is not. Changing reference frames will not start it rotating if it is not rotating.
Let’s set up an orbital surface on an x-y plane (reference frame) that slices through the Earth’s centre and the Moon’s centre. Visualize that surface with an x-coordinate that runs through the Earth’s centre at 0,0 and extends through the Moon’s centre at x’,y’ = 0′,0′.
In effect, you have two reference frames, one is x,y, the other is x’,y’. However, they share the same x-axis. That is not really kosher so we could create dotted lines along the x-axis between Earth and Moon to show the axis is the same line but changes to another coordinate system.
However, the x-axis from the Earth’s centre to the Moon’s surface represents a real force that holds the Moon in orbit like a rope or a rigid body. The Moon cannot rotate locally due to that force.
The Moon orbits the Earth’s 0,0 attached to a radial line represented by gravity so the same face of the Moon always faces 0,0.
The questions are:
1)does the Moon rotate around x’,y’ as it orbit 0,0?
2) does it rotate about x’,y’ from any other reference frame?
For 1), I claim it cannot rotate about x’,y’ because it is attached to the Earth via gravitational force. It is locked in position.
I claim further, that as the Moon rotates around Earth’s 0,0, that all parts of the Moon must be moving in concentric circles, therefore they can never cross adjacent circles to perform local rotation.
As for 2), lunar angular velocity is measures in radians/second about x’,y’. I have just proved that is not possible. Therefore, there is no angular velocity about x’y’ and that must apply in all reference frames.
Gordon Robertson says:
A frame of reference is a specified coordinate system. Local rotation about an axis is not affected by the definitions
That’s stupid. Gordon-stupid.
A reference frame attached to the Earth’s surface shows the Earth is not spinning. But it is spinning according to ANY inertial reference frame.
Gordon, the amazing thing about you is that you somehow manage to get EVERYTHING wrong.
How is that even possible???
Wow, David…how high up the thread are you going to go with this smear…?
I noticed you refrained from trying to prove me wrong.
That’s because there’s no point talking to you when you repeatedly refuse to understand what we are trying to explain.
Sorry there E man – my example should of been pretty clear to all – only two bodies ..the Earth and the Moon…. not the Moon and the Sun nor the Sun and any other moon. some wine-rs seem to lack this simple concept. it was just a simple thought example of two bodies.
and if it can be shown that only one of those bodies actually spines upon it’s axis…then why would you think that once we remove the ‘box of focus’ around only these two bodies that all the sudden one would start spinning?
So again…if only focusing on these two bodies …and these two alone.. which body would end up being continually wound up by this mythical string?… the way i understand it … just Body E.
Good example, Martin.
You know it’s good when the clowns go into full-blown denial.
Another one for the clowns to deny.
Trace the path of the point on the moon nearest to earth.
Trace the path of the point on the moon farthest from earth.
Measure the length of the two paths. if they are the same the moon is not rotating, if they are different the Moon must be spinning such that it does not pull itself apart.
Well done, you have proved that the moon must change orientation throughout its orbit, wrt to the fixed stars; which we already knew, and agreed.
You think of any change in orientation of an object wrt to the fixed stars, as axial rotation. That is understood.
We think of the change in orientation as part of “orbital motion”, and not axial rotation, as already explained.
You will soon be up to speed with the absolute basics of this argument.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Well done, you have proved that the moon must change orientation throughout its orbit, wrt to the fixed stars; which we already knew, and agreed.
That’s rotation about the Moon’s polar axis.
If the Moon weren’t rotating, someone standing on its surface would see the same stars as the Moon orbits the Earth.
But that’s not what they would see. Because the Moon is rotating about its polar axis while it’s orbiting.
David, we all get it that you don’t understand. There’s no need to keep confirming that.
How is my argument wrong?
You could have continued reading beyond the word “agreed”.
We think of the change in orientation as part of orbital motion, and not axial rotation, as already explained.
This thinking in wrong.
You still don’t understand that there are two axes of rotation.
That statement would be both incorrect, and an indication that you still don’t understand.
We think of the change in orientation as part of orbital motion, and not axial rotation, as already explained.
This thinking is still wrong.
You’d see that if you provided an algorithm for determining if a celestial body is rotating about an internal axis.
I think people who think this
“We think of the change in orientation as part of orbital motion, and not axial rotation, as already explained.”
Don’t understand that orbital motion and axial motion are two different and independent things.
Then you would be wrong.
DA…”This thinking in wrong”.
You fail to grasp that the Moon is changing direction wrt the stars due to orbital mechanics, not local angular momentum.
It is Earth’s gravitational field that is causing the Moon to turn as it orbits and it does that due to gradual, instantaneous changes in the Moon direction. The Moon is not changing direction due to local rotation about its axis, it is being coaxed into an orbit by gravity.
During its orbit, all parts of the Moon travel in concentric circles. I know that because a radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon has particles of the Moon along the line that must move with the line, hence in concentric circles.
If all particles on the Moon are moving in concentric circles they can’t cross over each others path as required by local rotation.
bob d…”Dont understand that orbital motion and axial motion are two different and independent things”.
Oribital motion is wrt the Earth and is due to the effect of Earth’s gravity on a body trying to move in a straight line.
Axial motion wrt the Moon is a local angular momentum about the Moon’s axis. That is not possible if the same side of the Moon always points to the Earth.
The change in direction of the Moon wrt the stars as it orbits the Earth is due to Earth’s gravitational field and not to a local angular momentum about a local axis on the Moon.
You guys remember that the axis the moon revolves around the earth and the axis the moon spins around it’s axis are tilted with respect to each other.
Remember?
I guess not, but that seals the deal about whether there are two different things going on or just one.
Deal unsealed:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359222
DREMT,
Are you sure you are going to let Gbaikai do your dirty work.
I went to that discussion and Nate was trouncing him.
Deal unsealed resealed.
The moon has an orbital axis as well as a rotational axis.
Those are the damn fact.
Sure, sure.
SURE SURE
Sure sounds like you are agreeing with me that the moon has a rotational axis that is different from it’s orbital axis.
Which would mean that the Moon is rotating.
I’ll accept that as you admitting defeat and that you are admitting you were wrong.
case closed.
‘deal unsealed’
Nope. This is how that discussion ended. Unless DREMT can explain the illogic.
“Nate says:
June 25, 2019 at 9:12 PM
Gbaike,
“‘The Moon has an axial tilt of 6.68 degrees. This is a significant tilt of the rotational axis away from the orbital axis.’
No it doesnt, it has obliquity of 6.68 degrees.
Obliquity IS the angle between rotational and orbital axes.
No, neither the Earth or Moon have 2 orbital axes.
That is something you have invented.”
blob, I think gbaikie’s point was made pretty well.
But perhaps it would help if you thought about what it would look like from Earth if the moon was not rotating on its own axis, as you see it. In which case, you would see all sides of the moon during a month. Imagine that you had a visual record of the movements over the course of a month. as you have now with the moon moving as it is, which looks like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#/media/File%3ALunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif
That shows the librations of latitude and longitude. With the moon turning during the month, you would still be able to determine patterns of libration from the paths that various craters and features take as they move across the moon’s face.
In that case, you could equally determine there was an “axis of rotation” in the same way it has been understood for the moon as it is.
Bob, please tell DREMT that his thought experiment is not well thought out. His assumed result is simply assumed.
The current libration pattern is simply explained, as Newton did, by rotation around a tilted axis plus an elliptical orbit.
If he can explain it another simpler way please urge him to tell us what that is.
Here is a picture, if you don’t get it, try finding your local astronomer to explain it to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
That diagram shows the difference between the axis of rotation and the axis of revolution.
And there you go, DREMPT, you just said it
“With the moon turning during the month”
You said it
the moon turns during the month
You ******* it up
“With the moon turning during the month”
Lol, blob…that was when I was describing the face of the moon turning during the month as we would see it from Earth if the moon moved as you would describe the situation with “zero axial rotation”.
Try reading the comment again. You’ll get there.
Well you continue to be a dumbass,
The moon rotates dumbass.
The moon turns dumbass.
If it didn’t we would see all sides from the earth, dumbass.
It’s hard not to be humbled by that comeback, blob.
bob d…”Trace the path of the point on the moon nearest to earth.
Trace the path of the point on the moon farthest from earth.
Measure the length of the two paths. if they are the same the moon is not rotating”
Come on, Bob, surely you’re not that dense. The far surface is 3474 km further out than the near face. The path (orbital distance) of the far side will be significantly longer than the path of the inner face.
The point is the inner face is following an orbital path that is running parallel to the orbit of the outer face. Each point in between is running along a similar parallel (concentric) orbit.
How do these point cross over as would be required for local rotation?
Local rotation doesn’t require the points to cross!
That’d be like saying if the Earth is rotation Santiago, Chile and somewhere in China would cross.
(they’re antipodes)
https://www.antipodesmap.com/
David doesn’t get that the particles making up the moon move in concentric circles (or concentric ellipses) about the Earth-moon barycenter. He doesn’t understand that the paths of the particles would need to cross, for their to be “axial rotation”, according to what we are saying.
He doesn’t get that because he doesn’t understand what we are explaining to him.
They don’t cross if the Moon is rotating.
They do cross if it’s not.
Again, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“They don’t cross if the Moon is rotating.
They do cross if it’s not.”
Now that’s a bit of a silly statement, David. The Earth rotates on its own axis many times as it orbits the sun. The paths of the particles making up the Earth would most definitely be crossing, many, many times.
DA STILL can’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on an axis”.
No wonder he doesn’t know any physics–he can’t learn!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The Earth rotates on its own axis many times as it orbits the sun. The paths of the particles making up the Earth would most definitely be crossing, many, many times.
Sure. But the Earth isn’t tidally locked to the Sun.
Not bad Gordon, I see I have split you off of JD’s position.
But concentric and parallel are two different things.
Parallel paths do not repeatedly go over the same paths, concentric ones do.
Parallel does not equal concentric.
#2
David doesn’t get that the particles making up the moon move in concentric circles (or concentric ellipses) about the Earth-moon barycenter. He doesn’t understand that the paths of the particles would need to cross, for their to be “axial rotation”, according to what we are saying.
He doesn’t get that because he doesn’t understand what we are explaining to him.
DA….Local rotation doesnt require the points to cross!
You’re out of context. We’re talking about the points on a rigid body orbiting another body with the same face of the former always facing the latter.
bob d…”Not bad Gordon, I see I have split you off of JDs position.
But concentric and parallel are two different things.
Parallel paths do not repeatedly go over the same paths, concentric ones do.
Parallel does not equal concentric”.
JD and I are still on the same wave-length, if you read him carefully he is saying the same thing as me.
With regard to circles, concentric and parallel mean the same thing. If you want to bring it down to straight lines, draw the tangent lines on concentric circles along the same radial line and they will be parallel.
I get what you mean, Gordon, but be careful that they don’t think you’re talking about parallel circles. There is such a thing, they’re just basically circles side by side, that overlap. Concentric circles, one inside the other, I understand what you mean by “parallel”, but any slight thing they can exploit, they will.
Gordon says: “JD and I are still on the same wave-length, if you read him carefully he is saying the same thing as me.”
Exactly, Gordon.
And DREMT has the patience to explain the details….
Gordon,
OK concentric and parallel are the same thing, I think they are not.
How about you find a high school geometry teacher to explain the difference to you.
I already explained that, blob.
Well DREMPTY,
Your explanation is faulty for several reasons.
Do check with your local high school geometry teacher, he or she perhaps can set you on the right path,
No, there’s nothing wrong with it. Parallel circles are typically circles of the same size, next to each other, overlapping. Concentric circles are circles within circles within circles. Pretty straightforward really.
Bobdroege
The two paths are different lengths.
The nearer path is 3000 miles closer to the Earth than the further path.
This means that the further path is longer than the nearer path.
A particle in the middle of the far side of the moon is therefore moving at a higher velocity than one in the middle of the visible side.
The outer particle is forced to move faster than its orbit requires. The inner particle is forced to move slower.
Left to themselves the two particles would go in completely orbits.
This stretches the Moon along the Earth/Moon axis. If the Moon were close enough to Earth this would tear it apart. Read about the Roche Limit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit
Very good. So I will just redirect you to the comment that already deals with that:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367714
Wrong bob and E-man.
All parts of the Noon are moving at the same linear velocity. You are seriously confused by orbital motion.
The racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis.
A jet circumnavigating the globe is NOT flying upside down during the trip.
Different parts of the Moon are NOT moving at different speeds.
Learn some physics, or remain clowns.
JD,
Gordon gets it,
why don’t you?
The far side of the moon is father from the earth and therefore moves farther during each orbit, thus is moving faster.
Do I need to draw circles on paper to prove this to you?
Are you really that dense?
bob, you are confusing angular speed with linear speed. That’s just more evidence you don’t understand the relative physics.
Nothing new.
Bob d…”A particle in the middle of the far side of the moon is therefore moving at a higher velocity than one in the middle of the visible side”.
You have to be careful not to mix up particle mechanics and rigid body mechanics.
What you say is true, but with a rigid body different rules apply. The angular velocity of a rigid body, like the Moon in orbit about the Earth, is not based on individual particles. It is based on the rate of change of a radial line from the Earth to the Moon.
Whereas the individual particles may be turning at different rates, they are still part of the rigid body and ALL particles must orbit in the same time. Doesn’t matter if they are moving at different speeds, they all complete the orbit in the same time.
The difference in their speed is due to this fact.
It’s the same here on Earth. Where I live, on the west coast of Canada, we are rotating at about 800 mph. People on the Equator are rotating at about 1000 mph. We all complete a rotation in the same time.
No “JD, you ignorant non-french person.
you say
“bob, you are confusing angular speed with linear speed. Thats just more evidence you dont understand the relative physics.
Nothing new.”
Just to make sure that one of us is not clueless.
All points of the moon are moving at the same angular velocity, you used the term speed, which shows your ignorance.
However, all points of the Moon are not moving at the same linear velocity, the far side is indeed moving faster than the near side.
Orbital angular velocity and spin angular velocity being different things, which you seem to be convinced they are the same.
I am not the confused little pooch here.
Get a clue, or better yet, go visit your local astronomy professor, he can straighten you out.
Entropic Man,
You did not read my post very well, but I think we are in agreement.
“Measure the length of the two paths. if they are the same the moon is not rotating, if they are different the Moon must be spinning such that it does not pull itself apart.”
Don’t forget to take a trip up to this comment when you’re finished being pleased with yourself:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367714
Wrong bob. I used “speed” so as not to confuse those without an understanding of the relevant physics. But, you got confused anyway.
Sorry, but I’m afraid you ARE the confused little pooch here. You believe a racehorse is rotating on its axis. You believe the blue jet is flying upside-down during one orbit.
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
JD,
Nope, I don’t believe the jet is upside down, but it is spinning on it’s axis once per revolution around the earth, just like the racehorse spins once per trip around the track, other wise you would be the jockey riding the horse ass first down the backstretch.
Nope JD,
“Wrong bob. I used “speed” so as not to confuse those without an understanding of the relevant physics. But, you got confused anyway.”
The far side of the moon is moving faster, just like two racehorses on a track running neck and neck the one on the outside is moving faster, so it has to go farther to win the race, that’s why jockeys move their racehorses to the rail so they don’t have to go as far to win the race.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359222
Whoops, wrong link:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367714
bob remains confused by orbital motion: “The far side of the moon is moving faster, just like two racehorses on a track…?
Wrong again, bob. Both sides of the Moon have the same linear speed as the center of mass. The entire Moon is being turned by the resultant force. You just don’t have the background to understand. You’ve probably never seen a toy train on an oval track. Consequently, you believe one side of the train made the loop faster than the other side….
JD,
In just one year we will have another go at the Olympics.
Check out some of the track events where the runners on the outside lanes start out farther down the track than those on the inside lanes.
Or go to your highschool track and measure, and you will find the outside lanes are longer than the inside lanes.
You would think that was obvious, but it just marks the lengths you will go to hold on to your delusions.
‘Wrong again, bob. Both sides of the Moon have the same linear speed as the center of mass. The entire Moon is being turned by the resultant force. ‘
JUST DUMB is at it again.
JD, connect two of your My Little Ponies together with a pencil. Now take them around your MY Little Pony race track.
The one on the outside travelled farther so she is more tired.
Just ask her!
blob seems desperate to score a point here.
Damn, Nate,
My daughter just graduated from high school, summa cum laude, I didn’t know they did that for high school.
I gave away all her my little ponies so I can’t replicate your experiment.
And all her barbie tapes, but barbie can sure ******* sing even though she’s a brunette.
Those barbie tapes sure cost me in voice lessons.
Look JD, you are flunking basic mechanics and I will parse it for you.
“Wrong again, bob. Both sides of the Moon have the same linear speed as the center of mass.”
If they are moving at the same speed, then there is no force, but you say
“The entire Moon is being turned by the resultant force.”
there is no force
“You just don’t have the background to understand.”
I passed all three courses in physic necessary to get my degree which has qualified me to perform other duties as assigned, my specialty.
“You’ve probably never seen a toy train on an oval track.”
Well I have, I gave one to my nephew for Christmas once, and he is probably earning more than you these days cutting grass, he makes a fortune cutting grass, but mostly on vacation.
And no the outside of the train goes faster but makes the loop in the same amount of time, unfortunately you have difficulty understanding this concept.
“Consequently, you believe one side of the train made the loop faster than the other side….”
Nope, it can move faster so it makes the loop in the same period, even though it moves faster.
One would think this would be easy to understand but hey, we are dealing with stupidity
…really desperate to score a point.
But even you DREMT, are aware that v = r*omega for your carousel.
The outer parts go faster than the inner parts.
Why doesnt your partner JD seem to get that??
DREMPT looks desparate to look stupid, and is doing a bang up job.
blob, I completely understand your point. Which is why I immediately responded to it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367714
Rendering everything that has followed, just petty point scoring on your part. An attempt to humiliate JD. Who by the way, has moved downthread, and probably isn’t even reading any of this anyway! So…you’re just completely wasting your time.
What is the Moon’s angular velocity about its polar axis?
You tell me.
You think the Moon isn’t rotating, yet your can’t even give the Moon’s angular velocity!
Way too funny.
‘ An attempt to humiliate JD. ‘
JD is choosing to humiliate himself, by choosing, as he so often does, to double down and triple down and 47 down on an erroneous idea, while also claiming that it is all the others (I assume inclu you!) who need to ‘learn some physics’.
David, since you know I argue that the moon is not rotating on its own axis, why would you ask me what is the angular velocity about that axis!?
Martin…”and most fantastically detectable and stretchable
silly string invention ever made”
I have already tried that one on the alarmists, Martin, using a rope. How about having the Earth be shaped like a yoyo with the silly string hooked around the slot in the Earth as in a yoyo. The other end, of course, is attached to the near side of the Moon.
If the Moon rotated locally as the silly string slid around the slot in the Earth, it would have to wrap itself up in the silly string.
Yes…I first considered a ‘two’ yo-yo example but it got complicated due to the rotation around the earth by the moon and the axial spin by the earth (both bodies held within it X amount of string/rope)… I mentally moved to a single yo-yo string but then decided to just go with the ever stretching string. ..silly as it seems. I see that some tried to avoid the original assertion by adding a new point of reference (the sun) but that still proves my point as the sun like the earth spins on it’s axis – and would be wound up massively more than body M… bodyM would be wound only by rotation
Gordon:
The Earth and Moon aren’t connected by a string.
So any model you come up with about a string is irrelevant and a waste of time.
David, please stop trolling.
reposted from above…
The thing stupid and bob d cannot explain re rotation, is how particles on a horse, moving in parallel paths, can cross over to perform local rotation. Both think the horse has to rotate on a local axis to turn around the curves on the track which reveals a lack of understanding of basic mechanics.
Stupid does not even understand the definition of curvilinear translation. It requires that all particles on a rigid body are moving parallel to their position when they started and that their velocities be the same.
With rectilinear translation, both are obvious, but once rectilinear translation changes to curvilinear translation, as on a track, it’s not so apparent. Stupid gets completely lost with a lack of basic physics and resorts to ad homs because he cannot explain it himself.
If the curved portion of the track can be considered a semi-circle, for convenience, then where the straight portion of the track meets the semi-circle, the curved portion begins.
Anyone who has studied curves in calculus knows that a curve is defined by a tangential line to the curve at any point. The curvature is defined by the slope of the tangent line which is the first derivative of the curve’s equation.
That tangent line can be defined geometrically by fitting a circle to the curve and using the radius of the circle where it meets the curve. At that point, a line perpendicular to the radius is the tangent line.
As the horse transitions from the straight portion of the track onto the curved portion, it begins following a series of straight (tangent) lines. Therefore, at each instant the horse is performing rectilinear translation.
The horse does not bend it’s body to turn around the curve, it is always running straight ahead, albeit with very slight changes in the direction of the tangent line. That motion is the crux of the problem.
At each instant, every part of the horse is moving in a straight line, with all parts moving parallel to each other as at the start of motion.
Now for the same velocity of each part. Since the horse is a rigid body, the angular velocity on the curve must be determined by the change of angle of a radial line at the axis of the semi-circle. That radial line, when passed through the horse, is moving at a uniform speed FOR ALL PARTICLE IN THE BODY.
I have just defined curvilinear translation and there is nothing stupid can say to contest that FACT.
The horse turns due to curvilinear translation, not local rotation, and anyone with a basic understanding of mechanics would see that immediately.
What do you think it would look like if the horse WERE rotating about an axis internal to the horse?
DA…”What do you think it would look like if the horse WERE rotating about an axis internal to the horse?”
Like a figure skater skating around a rink while doing spins. That would be one talented horse.
Gordon – here’s JD’s GKJ cartoon showing you how the horse (blue jet) turns in a local rotation about its own axis while completing one orbit of the green object center simultaneously, and anyone with a basic understanding of mechanics would see that immediately.
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
Of course what fluffball means to say is that the blue jet is “orbiting”, not “rotating on its axis”.
He likes the graphic, but he’s still learning….
What I mean to say is what JD’s GKJ actually shows:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367846
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson says:
DAWhat do you think it would look like if the horse WERE rotating about an axis internal to the horse?
Like a figure skater skating around a rink while doing spins
Those “spins” are internal rotation, whether of the skater or the Moon.
Gordon, you have written repeatedly that the Moon is rotating. But for some reason you wont’ admit it. How come?
David, please stop trolling.
Consider a human running the track.
He starts out facing north.
He continues to face north all way around the track. Meaning he’s running sideways at the top of the turns and running backwards on the back stretch.
Is this person rotation about his axis>
DA, that is the same as the racehorse scenario. You are unable to make progress.
The racehorse is “changing directions”, NOT “rotating on its axis”. You clowns believe the racehorse is rotating on its axis, because you can’t understand orbital motion. That’s why you must also erroneously believe a blue jet is flying upside down as it flies around the green planet.
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
You just can’t understand orbital motion.
DA…”Consider a human running the track.”
We used to do something similar practicing soccer. We’d run straight then turn 180 degrees, while still in motion, and run backwards, then turn back 180 degrees and run forward.
That’s local rotation with rectilinear translation.
The horse on the track just keeps moving forward with no local rotation.
Gordon: That’s not the scenario I specified.
Again – the runner starts out of the blocks facing north.
He CONTINUES facing north the entire time around the track, whether that means he must run forwards, sideways, or backwards.
Is this runner rotating?
Still no improvement in your understanding, David. Must try harder.
It’s a childish game — I” won’t address objections until you declare I’m right.”
You avoid questions because you’re afraid the answer will prove your “understanding” wrong. You’ve done that for several days now.
Wrong. You don’t have to agree. You just have to show you understand. Your comments demonstrate you do not. It must be pretty funny for people that do understand, on the “Non-Spinner” side, and pretty embarrassing and cringe-worthy for people that understand, on the “Spinner” side. Not that those people would help you, in a million years.
Concerning understanding, NASA and every astronomer on the planet agree with me, not you. NASA had to actually calculate how to land and lift off from Moon; knowing its rotation rate would be a crucial input.
I’m comfortable that I’m on the right side in this.
I’m sure you are, David. But you could be even more sure if you understood our argument.
The arguments I’ve seen from the nonrotators here are understood, and wrong.
If you’re going to disagree with NASA, you’d better have an airtight argument. So far you have nothing close to that. They’ll need something more than repeatedly telling them that they don’t understand.
Not being able to understand the relevant physics, DA runs and hides behind his false religion.
Nothing new.
Wrong DA. Now you’re just making stuff up.
You’re not comfortable that you’re right. That’s why you have to make stuff up.
DA…”Concerning understanding, NASA and every astronomer on the planet agree with me, not you”.
NASA is a big outfit with many engineers. I’d like to talk to some of them to see who disagrees and who does not.
Astronomers can be hopeless. Many believe in Big Bangs, black holes, and space-time curvature. Due to the nature of astronomy, which is largely cerebral, illusions become part of the game.
I was reading one astronomer the other day who thought the Moon stayed in orbit due to a balance between centripetal and centrifugal forces. The centripetal force is Earth’s gravity and who knows what she meant by a centrifugal force, which would have to act out the way.
The only force that could possibly act out the way is the comparatively weak force produced by the Moon. If it came down to that, the centripetal force would prevail and the Moon would come crashing down on the Earth.
Gordon Robertson says:
Astronomers can be hopeless. Many believe in Big Bangs, black holes, and space-time curvature.
All of those things exist.
But of course, Dr Robertson, your long list of journal publications most definitely proves them wrong.
It does, I”m telling you.
David, please stop trolling.
F U
#2
David, please stop trolling.
‘Concerning understanding, NASA and every astronomer on the planet agree with me, not you. NASA had to actually calculate how to land and lift off from Moon; knowing its rotation rate would be a crucial input.’
I was about to make the same point.
The LEM had to leave the surface and get into a precise orbit to meet up with the Command Module.
To orbit the Moon a spacecraft needs ~ 1700 m/s. An extra few m/s puts them in the wrong orbit.
The rotating Moon’s surface has an equatorial speed of about 5 m/s.
Do you think NASA needed to know about this extra 5 m/s that a rotating Moon would provide?
Same goes for landing in the target area.
nate…”The LEM had to leave the surface and get into a precise orbit to meet up with the Command Module”.
Yes…the command module was orbiting the Moon, moving at considerable speed. In order to rendezvous, the LEM’s ascent would have to be calculated precisely, not because the Moon was rotating, because the command module was moving fast.
“The rotating Moon’s surface has an equatorial speed of about 5 m/s.”
The Moon’s circumference at the equator is 10,921 km., which is 10,921,000 metres. With an equatorial speed of 5 m/s, it would take 10,921,000 km x (1/5m/s) = 2184200 seconds to turn one revolution. That’s 606.7 hours = 25 days.
Seems you calculated it’s equatorial speed by presuming it orbited once about every 28 days.
Nice try.
Nice try.
Thanks, darn close to predicted.
‘ not because the Moon was rotating, because the command module was moving fast.’
Because of both!
Just as on Earth, rockets are fired East because of the gain in speed from the rotating Earth.
It is a real effect, just smaller on the Moon.
Gordon thinks he knows better than NASA if the Moon is rotating.
Just look at Gordon’s long list of publications in the field.
David, please stop trolling.
Nate, all the engineers had to know were the orbital values for the Moon, since it does not rotate on it axis.
The landing craft had manual control, for the necessary fine tuning.
You’re grasping at straws, again.
‘Nate, all the engineers had to know were the orbital values for the Moon, since it does not rotate on it axis.’
I’m very glad you were not a ‘rocket scientist’ directing the mission…this is what we’d have gotten:
http://www.yeuanhvan.com/images/stories/word_stories/Rocket_Scientists.jpg
Yes Nate, you like being a clown.
We’ve known that for quite a time.
Here is an analysis of the LEM trajectory for Apollo 11.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/nasa58040.pdf
Their preflight calculated velocities for ascent and the real time measured velocities needed to be the same within some tolerance.
In fact they were were within 2 feet per second (fps)!
These seem to be measured relative to the lunar surface.
They also measured relative to the Earth as a check. These were the same within ~ 3 fps.
page 25.
As you know 1 m/s is 3.3 fps
With a rotating Moon, the surface is moving 5 m/s ~ 16 fps.
One can easily see that taking this 16 fps difference due to a rotating Moon into account was essential!
Again, they only needed the orbital values since the Moon has no axial rotation.
Gordon squeals:
“Stupid does not even understand the definition of curvilinear translation. It requires that all particles on a rigid body are moving parallel to their position when they started and that their velocities be the same!”
No, you dolt. Curvilinear translation requires any line in the body to remain parallel to its original position, not particles, Einstein. Curvilinear translations does not allow any change in orientation of the body. Your stupid FAKE definition (because you are a fake engineer) has the horse changing orientation since its path follows a tangent line to the curve.
That is NOT curvilinear translation, BOZO. All particles in the body have the same velocity and acceleration. That is true, but the reference is to velocity, NOT angular velocity.
Gordon further squeals:
“Now for the same velocity of each part. Since the horse is a rigid body, the angular velocity on the curve must be determined by the change of angle of a radial line at the axis of the semi-circle!”
WRONG! You fake engineer. The velocities being referred to are NOT angular velocities. This is where you screw up big time, because you are a fake engineer.You are just flat out LYING. Please refer to the following lecture notes:
[http://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf]
Go to page 17: Theory:Translation (16.2), which states:
“All point on a rigid body subject to either rectilinear or curvilinear translation (i.e. no rotation) move with the same velocity and acceleration.”
Notice it does NOT say “angular velocity”. And on the very next page of these same lecture notes, they discuss angular velocity (the omega sign, not “V”) in a discussion concerning rotation about a fixed axis. They make a distinction between the two types of velocity, using a different name and symbol.
You will not find any kinematic reference source that states that all points on a rigid subject to rectilinear or curvilinear translation body move with the same “angular” velocity.
Gordon further bloviates:
“I have just defined curvilinear translation and there is nothing stupid can say to contest that FACT!”
LMAO. Gordon, you just made a complete fool of yourself. You made up your own INCORRECT definition of curvilinear translation, which is why you do not understand rotation as well. Thanks for proving your fake engineer status.
Gordon finally shrieks:
“The horse turns due to curvilinear translation, not local rotation, and anyone with a basic understanding of mechanics would see that immediately!”
With curvilinear translation, an object does not change orientation, no line in the object rotates, every line in the object remains parallel to its original position, and the velocities of any point in the object are the same. Your horse violates every one of these concepts of curvilinear translation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367809
stupid…”Curvilinear translation requires any line in the body to remain parallel to its original position, not particles….”
***
What is a line, you idiot? Is that a new-age definition of mass…matter is made up of lines?
BTW…I have noted that you resort to ad homs and slurs, like Norman, because you lack the ability to debate scientifically.
“Curvilinear translations does not allow any change in orientation of the body. …. All particles in the body have the same velocity and acceleration. That is true, but the reference is to velocity, NOT angular velocity”.
***
I would tell you to go back and study first year physics, but it’s apparent you have yet to study it. Like Norman, you get your mistaken ideas from books and Google.
If curvilinear translation does not allow any change in orientation of the body, how does the body follow a curved path? And if the body follows a curved path, is a circle not a curved path?
Furthermore, the motion of a rigid body is not based on the motion (velocity) of individual particles. If a rigid body is rotating about an axis, and it has no local rotation, the angular velocity of the rigid body is based on the rate of change of a radial line between the axis and the rigid body.
Is that not apparent on the Earth? Every particle on rigid body Earth MUST complete one rotation in 24 hours even though different particles may be rotating at different velocities. Looking at Earth in its orbit, every particle must orbit the Sun in 365+ days.
Your understanding of basic mechanics is null and void.
*********
From your link…”Passengers on this amusement ride are subjected to curvilinear translation since the vehicle moves in a circular path but always remains upright”.
*****
If passengers in an airliner fly around the Earth, do they not remain upright?
Are you seriously this stupid?
“With curvilinear translation, an object does not change orientation, no line in the object rotates, every line in the object remains parallel to its original position, and the velocities of any point in the object are the same. Your horse violates every one of these concepts of curvilinear translation”.
*****
The violation here is your violation of basic physics. There is nothing in the definition of curvilinear translation that claims the body cannot change orientation wrt to an external observer.
The definition at your link is far too tight and exclusive. If a rigid body is performing rectinlinear translation then starts to move along a curve, there is no reason to claim the definition of curvilinear translation has been corrupted.
If the body performs rectilinear translation then curves around a semi-circle and carries on with rectilinear translation what do you call the portion where it ‘translates’ around the semi-circle?
Suppose further, that the translation is taking place on a railway track where the vehicle is forced to follow a curved path hence changing orientation?
The criterion is not the orientation of the body but the two other factors: that all parts of the body keep moving parallel to each other and at the same velocity.
Here’s where you utterly screw up with your understanding of motion. On a curve, the velocity of a rigid body is related to the angular velocity of the entire body, not its particles. That angular velocity is determined by a radial line through a tangent line to the curve.
You have to treat each portion of the curve as if it is on the circumference of a circle, with the rate of change of the curve the slope of the tangent line to that point, which is perpendicular to a radial line of the circle at that point.
Therefore, if a rigid body performing rectilinear translation converts to a curved path while maintaining all parts moving parallel at the same angular velocity, then the transformation is from rectilinear motion to curvilinear motion.
With the Moon’s orbit, that is particularly true. All points on the Moon, at any instant, are moving in a straight line at the same velocity.
It’s no different with the horse. Along the straightaway, it is performing rectilinear translation. As it enters the curve, all parts of the horse are moving instantaneously parallel to each other and at the same angular velocity.
Once again, the angular velocity of a rigid body on a curve is measured from the rate of change a radial line from an imaginary circle encompassing the arc of the curve to the imaginary axis at the circle centre. The velocity has nothing to do with the velocity of individual particles making up the rigid body.
Gordon squeals:
“If curvilinear translation does not allow any change in orientation of the body, how does the body follow a curved path?”
A ferris wheel chair does not change orientation and follows a curved path. A good example of curvilinear translation. Furthermore, any point on the chair will have the same velocity, and a line drawn through the chair will remain parallel to its original position. All criteria for curvilinear translation.
With much confusion, Gordon whines:
“And if the body follows a curved path, is a circle not a curved path?”
A circle is a curved path. Once again, a ferris wheel chair follows a curved path (circular) without changing orientation.
Gordon moans:
“From your linkPassengers on this amusement ride are subjected to curvilinear translation since the vehicle moves in a circular path but always remains upright.
*****
If passengers in an airliner fly around the Earth, do they not remain upright?
Are you seriously this stupid?”
Gordon seriously does not get curvilinear translation. It’s obvious from the question he asks about how an object can not change orientation, but follow a curve. The amusement ride is essentially a bus attached to two arms that rotate. The bus never changes orientation during its motion. Draw a horizontal line through the floor. That line remains parallel to its original position throughout the motion of the ride. That is another defining principle of an object undergoing curvilinear translation. Your passenger airplane idea is not comparable. It’s an object orbiting the earth.
Gordon moans:
“There is nothing in the definition of curvilinear translation that claims the body cannot change orientation wrt to an external observer.”
The definitions are very specific. I can’t help it if you don’t get it. A translating object cannot change orientation wrt the inertial reference frame, period, no exceptions.
Gordon squeals:
“The definition at your link is far too tight and exclusive. If a rigid body is performing rectinlinear translation then starts to move along a curve, there is no reason to claim the definition of curvilinear translation has been corrupted.”
That is totally untrue! Your confusion arises because you believe an object cannot follow a curve and not change orientation. I already gave you one example. The definition of translation will be corrupted if the object changes orientation. I have multiple references that say the same thing.
Gordon ponders:
“If the body performs rectilinear translation then curves around a semi-circle and carries on with rectilinear translation what do you call the portion where it translates around the semi-circle?”
When a rectilinear translating body enters a curve, it will no longer be performing rectilinear translation. If the body does not change orientation while moving along the curve, that motion will be curvilinear translation. If its orientation changes around the curve, it will be general curvilinear motion.
Gordon shrieks:
“Suppose further, that the translation is taking place on a railway track where the vehicle is forced to follow a curved path hence changing orientation?”
With the train being forced to follow a circular path, the train as a whole will not longer be translating.
Gordon squawks:
“The criterion is not the orientation of the body but the two other factors: that all parts of the body keep moving parallel to each other and at the same velocity.”
You have one of the factors wrong. “all parts of the body keep moving parallel to each other” is not a factor. The factor is correctly stated, “every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.” All three factors do not conflict with each other.
Gordon mumbles:
“Heres where you utterly screw up with your understanding of motion. On a curve, the velocity of a rigid body is related to the angular velocity of the entire body, not its particles. That angular velocity is determined by a radial line through a tangent line to the curve.”
No Gordon. You mess up completely. Take, for instance, a train engine on a circular track. The velocity of the outside of the train is greater than the velocity of the inside, since the outside of the train is at a greater radius (velocity = omega times x radius). Therefore, per the criteria, the train is not undergoing curvilinear translation since the velocities are different. The trains orientation is changing as well: therefore no curvilinear translation. And the third factor: a line through the train does not remain parallel to its original position, so no curvilinear translation. All three factors never conflict with each other.
Gordon pants:
“Therefore, if a rigid body performing rectilinear translation converts to a curved path while maintaining all parts moving parallel at the same angular velocity, then the transformation is from rectilinear motion to curvilinear motion.”
Your two conditions are completely in error. “All parts moving parallel” is not a criteria for curvilinear translation as I explained above. “Angular velocity” is not a criteria for curvilinear translation as I also explained above.
Gordon squeals:
“Its no different with the horse. Along the straightaway, it is performing rectilinear translation. As it enters the curve, all parts of the horse are moving instantaneously parallel to each other and at the same angular velocity.”
You have the WRONG criteria again. All parts of the horse may be moving instantaneously parallel to each other, but that is NOT a criteria for curvilinear translation. The requirement is that a line through the object remains parallel to its original position. That does not happen with the horse. Once again, with curvilinear translation, all points on the object must have the same VELOCITY. On a curve, the outside of the horse has a greater velocity than the inside of the horse, therefore, curvilinear translation is not occurring.
Gordon wrote:
Once again, the angular velocity of a rigid body on a curve is measured from the rate of change a radial line from an imaginary circle encompassing the arc of the curve to the imaginary axis at the circle centre.
And how do you measure the angular velocity of the Moon’s spinning around its polar axis?
Seriously? Both still beating this drum…
Whether it’s zero or nonzero, how do you measure the angular velocity of the Moon spinning around its polar axis?
How would you measure it?
Since you’re so sure what is and isn’t rotating, tell us what your criteria are.
How do you determine if a celestial body *IS* rotating.
How do you determine if it IS NOT rotating?
#2
How would you measure it?
Ha ha.
Why are you afraid to answer?
#3
How would you measure it?
Ha ha.
Why are you afraid to answer?
See, you claim the Moon isn’t rotating, but you won’t say how you determined this.
That’s not an legitimate answer.
#4
How would you measure it?
It was *you* who claimed the Moon wasn’t rotating.
What criteria did you use for this determination?
#5
How would you measure it?
Gordon squeals:
“If curvilinear translation does not allow any change in orientation of the body, how does the body follow a curved path?”
I’ll answer this again with a second example. The pedals of a bicycle follow a curved (circular) path. The pedals can be held so they are oriented parallel to the ground at all times as the crank is turned. So the pedals follow a curved path and their orientation does not change, meeting the requirement for curvilinear translation.
Gordon’s moved on, further downthread, HGS.
On the topic of rotation, this clip explains all.
And, it features our own 3 stooges:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BMM2Q88w9w
DMT your fascination with comedy likely explains your success as a clown. Do you still claim the Apollo missions were a hoax?
Maybe the Moon is not even really there….
Did’nt you invent the moonwalk?……. here on Earth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5_Fh3hPKAY
ibid.
The only real attempt to land on the moon is documented here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq8k3cU4tI4
Did’nt you invent the moon walk?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5_Fh3hPKAY
Didn’t you just invent the incorrect placement of an apostrophe in “did’nt”?
Apologies. Like all denialists, my education is limited.
Im’ sur’e your’e r’ight.
L’O’L
From a textbook on astrodynamics, reviewing another textbook:
“Perturbations and the motion of the Moon as well as the Earth’s and Moon’s rotation are discussed.”
from “Celestial Dynamics,” Dvorak and Lhotka, Wiley 2013.
https://is.gd/cDBd6N
https://books.google.com/books?id=CWOoAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT328&lpg=PT328&dq=textbook+astrodynamics+%22moon%27s+rotation%22&source=bl&ots=HVbcv8_Zku&sig=ACfU3U1KzSKs5pFjjuBkm4_y_6qd_-GGGQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxir-q0s7jAhUKpJ4KHadaCJsQ6AEwF3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=textbook%20astrodynamics%20%22moon's%20rotation%22&f=false
DA, are you in the same typing class as Bindidon?
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
Actually, there’s quite a funny comment in this article.
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
It’s funny, because they compare a ball on the end of a string, to a planet going around a star. If only astronomers actually did that, then they would compare the moon “revolving” about the Earth-moon barycenter, with the ball on the end of the string. In which case that one singular motion, “revolving”, alone would describe the way the moon moves, and “axial rotation” would be separate and independent to that.
Instead, what most astronomers really do, is define “revolving” the way HGS describes “curvilinear translation”. And then “axial rotation” is separate and independent to that. Which leads them to conclude the moon is both “revolving” and “rotating on its own axis”, simultaneously.
Astronomers clearly need to study some physics. A lot of pseudoscience comes from this “soft science”–Moon rotating, “tidal locking”, black holes, big bang, Drake equation, Hubble equation, CMBR is from big bang, etc.
It didn’t help that Astronomy grew from Astrology.
6:04PM: Which leads JD to draw a cartoon showing the moon (blue jet) is both orbiting “revolving” about an external axis (green object center point) and “rotating about blue jet’s own internal axis”, one complete rotation per orbit “revolution”, simultaneously!
JD and DREMT, keep on referring to JD’s GKJ cartoon.
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
The point of that comment went right over your head, a bit like the blue jet (upside down, as you would see it).
The cartoon IS accurate since JD’s GKJ cartoon is showing the moon (blue jet) is both orbiting “revolving” about an external axis (green object center point) and “rotating about blue jet’s own internal axis”, one complete rotation per orbit “revolution”, simultaneously! Just like a racehourse and toy train.
JD and DREMT, keep referring to this accurate cartoon by JD. I knew JD could learn some physics! Finally! Took a while…now let’s see about Gordon.
When fluffball loses it, he just rambles like this.
I always enjoy the show….
There’s no running away now JD, you got it right, please keep referring to GKJ.
So JD, take the GKJ blue jet in the position of N. Show that same position W,S,E.
In that case, no upside down jet in the cartoon and someone standing on the green circle or outside the orbit would see ALL sides of the blue jet unlike seeing only the one face of the rotating on its own axis moon. This would be the case where the blue jet does not rotate on its own axis.
Get some crayons and get to work. Or commenters will just have to use their imagination.
fluffball, you are trapped in the web of your pseudoscience.
You claim the racehorse is “really” rotating on its axis because that’s how it appears, when viewed “from the stars”.
But, using the same “logic”, the blue jet would be flying upside-down, during parts of its orbit.
If you were able to actually face reality, you would understand that the horse is NOT rotating on its axis, and the blue jet is NOT flying upside-down.
You have just been fooled by your pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
Correct JD, the blue jet is NOT ever flying upside-down because your GKJ correctly shows blue jet rotates once on its own axis, just like the moon, racehorse and toy train. Your GKJ correctly demonstrates jet’s one side belly shown to Earth during the whole of the orbit.
JD, keep referring to GKJ you finally got a cartoon right, just like Dr. Spencer wrote about Earth’s moon in top post.
When fluffball loses it, he just rambles like this.
Sit back and enjoy the show….
JD created ANOTHER non-moving gif? What a genius!
Yes, it can be difficult for some.
Maybe he should pin it to his mom’s refrigerator, it’s just up the stairs and to the left.
Wherever he puts it, he has to be careful, because you people really do struggle to visualize things…if it’s not animated, it can be too hard for you. Shame.
Many of us think *you’re* the one who has problems visualizing here.
Your attempts to stop the discussion via fiat just tell us how unsure you are and how much you prefer to end the discussion pronto.
What attempts to stop the discussion? What are you on about, David?
when Moe gets on a blog, it devolves into a mindless food fight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gKnQ8nG2ik
Now Moe the person who knows zero physics has the balls to make the claim that astronomers need to study some physics. What a complete idiot.
I still wonder why intelligent posters waste their time replying to Moe. He is a real idiot and likes to stir stuff up. Loves to start long “food fights” over the stupidest points.
That there is a day/night cycle on the Moon is all you need to know to grasp the Moon is rotating on its axis. Moe can’t understand it.
Moe also thinks the air temperature is what his IR device shows.
Does Moe put a coat on when getting these readings?
“Clear sky directly overhead, many stars visible –> -8.8 F (-22.7 C)
Ground –> 72.5 F (22.5 C)”
I guess if Moe believes the air to be -8.8 F he should probably cover up good to keep from freezing.
Moe is one arrogant idiot.
Poor Norman, once again he fails to make an intelligent comment. He must not understand temperatures drop with altitude. He has so much to learn.
But, at least he knows how to type….
Norman…”That there is a day/night cycle on the Moon is all you need to know to grasp the Moon is rotating on its axis”.
Norman, you really are an idiot when it comes to being unable to see beyond the end of your nose. You settle on an explanation and you are unable to move away from it, even though it contradicts the laws of physics and makes little sense.
The day/night cycle on the Moon is related to the Sun as it strikes the Moon during different phases of its orbit. That’s why you have crescent Moons, full Moons, etc. They depend on the angle sunlight strikes the Moon and is reflected to Earth. And that depends on where the Moon is in its orbit.
Day/night on the Moon has absolutely nothing to do with local rotation on the Moon. The only rotation on the Moon is libration, which is an apparent rotation due to the view angle of a human from certain parts of Earth.
“The only rotation on the Moon is libration, which is an apparent rotation due to the view angle of a human from certain parts of Earth.”
Huh? Where from?
Libration is due to the fact that the Moon’s axis of ROTATION is tilted and the Moons orbital eccentricity is not zero.
Compare to a horse on an oval track.
Unlike the horse, the Moon would keep on rotating (turning) even when its on a straight portion of the track!
If a horse did that we would see the horse having Libration.
nate…”Libration is due to the fact that the Moons axis of ROTATION is tilted and the Moons orbital eccentricity is not zero”.
There are three types of libration, yours being one of them. I am referring to the type where the Moon, at certain parts of its orbit, when viewed from certain parts of the Earth, allow us to peak slightly around its edge.
You could compare your type to the view angle of the Sun of the tilted Earth at various parts of the Earth orbit. Obviously, the Sun sees more or less of the North Pole, depending on the season, which is related to the Earth’s position in its orbit and its tilt.
“Instead, what most astronomers really do, is define ‘revolving’ the way HGS describes ‘curvilinear translation’. And then ‘axial rotation’ is separate and independent to that. Which leads them to conclude the moon is both ‘revolving’ and rotating on its own axis, simultaneously.”
Exactly, you guys definitely wouldnt want to do what astronomers and rocket scientists do.
What the hell do those jerks know!
Or maybe astronomers and others have figured out that celestial objects come with all sorts of orbital and rotational parameters:
axial tilt, sidereal rotational period, orbit eccentricity, orbital period, inclination, etc.
Few, if any, celestial objects behave JUST LIKE a ball on a string, with exactly equal rotational and orbital periods, and exactly zero eccentricity and zero axial tilt.
Maybe they figured out that using definitions that work well for a very limited number of objects, if any, but don’t work well for the vast majority of other objects would be rather counterproductive.
Nate, your desperation is showing.
But, that’s not all bad, because it’s funny….
As I wrote above, I think it’s impossible for a celestial body not to rotate. Unless it’s of a uniform radially symmetric density, as is the body it’s orbiting, gravity won’t allow it.
“As I wrote above, I think it’s impossible for a celestial body not to rotate.”
Sure, everything rotates. Just not necessarily about its own axis.
Nope — about its axis.
Any deviation from a radially symmetric density, in either the central or minor body, will create a torque(s) that cause the other body to spin about its own axis.
What, specifically, creates the torque, and how?
The inhomogeneity creates the torque.
This should be obvious to anyone who took 1st semester college (or even high school) physics.
Only a density that is radially symmetric means no torques. Any piece of the orbiting body with density rho(r) and volume dV on one side is exactly balanced by the piece with the same volume & density on the other side.
But an inhomogenity means different gravitational forces on the two sides.
That inhomogenity manifests as a torque on the piece of matter dV in the orbiting body.
That torque creates a rotation, as torques always do.
…or a counter torque, which would reduce the rate of axial rotation…
So you’re saying a “countertorque” is a torque that reduces rotation.
And you think such a countertorque disappears when the rotation rate reaches 0?
You think such forces disappear when the rotation rate reaches 1, so…
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“You think such forces disappear when the rotation rate reaches 1, so”
One what?
(A rotation rate has units, which apparently you don’t know.)
One “axial rotation” per orbit.
ball1…”Gordon heres JDs GKJ cartoon showing you how the horse (blue jet) turns in a local rotation about its own axis while completing one orbit of the green object center simultaneously….”
************
Ask yourself a question from JD’s drawing. Are the people in the upside down jet falling out of their seats?
No.
Why???
Because, they are being held in their seats by a downward force called gravity. That gravitational field applies right around the Earth and it’s why people in Australia don’t think they are walking upside down as opposed to people in Europe.
Use your friggin’ brain. If a jet takes off at Heathrow in London and flies to Perth Australia, does it turn upside down somewhere along the way?
Of course, not. At any instant, down is in the direction of gravitational force. Up and down is relative, down is always in the direction of gravity.
You alarmists are about as dumb as a sack of hammers. You fail to grasp that the Moon is turned by gravitational force and that local rotation has nothing to do with its positional change in its orbit.
You are in good company, some people at NASA apparently don’t get it either. Someone told them is a class that the Moon rotates once per orbit and they believed it. Not one of them, unlike Tesla, took the time to examine the claim.
If that jet tried to perform an Earth orbit in the atmosphere it would have to supply enough power to keep it level with the horizon. The wings would give it lift and the engines would give it the motive power to hold its altitude against gravity.
What would happen if the pilot let off on the power? The plane would begin to dive downward. That motion is called rotation. On the ground, as the plane gains speed and the nose starts to lift, it is called rotation.
Do you see any rotation in JD’s drawing? Nope. Do you see the nose dipping, or any other indication that the plane is rotating about its COG? Nope.
Gordon wrote:
“You fail to grasp that…that local rotation has nothing to do with its positional change in its orbit.”
Very good!
Local rotation. Plus orbiting. Separate.
You have stumbled backwards into the correct understanding.
Poor David’s understanding has not improved one iota.
Specify how I’m wrong.
You keep implying that we do not separate axial rotation from orbital motion.
You couldn’t be more wrong, every single time you say something like that.
It’s so boring to hear.
Try to get it into your head, David:
We see the the sort of motion the moon makes, as “orbital motion”. Motion where the same face of the object faces the center of the orbit, throughout. That is “orbital motion”.
Then, “axial rotation” is separate and independent of that motion.
Do you understand, David?
Not agree…but understand?
How many times have people had to try to explain the exact same thing to you…over and over and over and over and over again?
Do you finally get it, David?
We see the the sort of motion the moon makes, as orbital motion. Motion where the same face of the object faces the center of the orbit, throughout. That is orbital motion.
This is precisely where you’re wrong.
Such same-faced motion necessarily requires the orbiting body to rotate with respect to its own internal axis..
You’d see that if you ever had the balls to specify what a celestial body’s internal “rotation” (spinning) would look like, & how it’s defined and how its presence would be determined and detected.
Emergency: Here’s a celestial body, X.
How do you determine if X is spinning about an internal axis?
“Such same-faced motion necessarily requires the orbiting body to rotate with respect to its own internal axis..”
And this is precisely where you’re wrong.
If an object rotates (or more specifically, revolves) about an axis that is separate from the object, the same face of the object is turned towards that central axis, throughout. The particles making up the object move in concentric circles about the central axis.
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b).
“…the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
The particles making up the moon move in concentric circles, or ellipses, about the Earth-moon barycenter.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
If an object rotates (or more specifically, revolves) about an axis that is separate from the object, the same face of the object is turned towards that central axis, throughout
Nope.
Counterexample: the Earth’s as it goes around the Sun.
That’s because the Earth is also rotating on its own axis.
So you admit your initial claim was wrong.
My initial claim is correct. The fact that another, separate and independent motion can coincide with the initial motion I described changes nothing about the reality of the initial motion I described.
How do you determine if the Moon is rotating about its internal axis or not?
Switching back to a question, apropos of nothing, must mean you concede the point. I acknowledge your concession.
This is getting at a key point that DREMT et al don’t get.
And this is why, as always, D will evade the question.
Suppose we had another Moon, Moon 2.0 far away from our solar system and stationary.
Give Moon 2.0 a rotation about its own center of 1 rev/27.321 days wrt the stars. Its axis points to some constellation.
Is it rotating about its own axis? Yes. I think all would agree.
Now give Moon 2.0 a push so it heads toward our solar system.
It is now translating and still rotating about the same axis. I think all would agree.
Now suppose its trajectory is such that it ends up arriving near Earth at the same velocity and distance as the Moon was a day earlier.
It is now translating on an elliptical path. It is orbiting Earth.
Because it was rotating at 1 rev/27.321 d, Moon 2.0 ends up keeping its same face to the Earth.
But is it STILL rotating about the same axis?
Yes, we would say. Its axis is still pointing to the same constellation and its rotation rate didnt change wrt the stars.
Someone standing on its N pole and looking at the stars circling would detect no change in rotation or axis.
Inexplicably you guys would say it has now STOPPED rotating about this axis.
It stopped? How? Why?
A spinning abject, once it enters an orbit, suddenly stops spinning?
But no one standing on the object detects the change?
None of the non-spinners can explain this contradiction??
Since they cannot define ‘rotation on own axis’ in a way that works in this scenario.
So just evade the issue. No surprise.
“ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) has successfully launched their Chandrayaan-2 mission to the Moon. The mission, which includes an orbiter, a lander, and a rover, was launched into space on a GSLV Mk III rocket on July 22nd, after a week-long delay. On September 7th it will perform a soft-landing on the Moon.”
https://www.universetoday.com/142963/indias-chandrayaan-2-is-heading-to-the-moon/
And:
“Chandrayaan-2 is going to the lunar south pole, a destination no other nation’s spacecraft has reached. Once there, it will investigate lunar water. Though both of the moon’s poles are in shadow, the shadowed area at the south pole is much larger. The mission will study the presence of frozen water in that shadowed region.”
–Just two days after the world celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, India’s second mission to the Moon, Chandrayaan-2, began its 48-day journey to the Moon. Chandrayaan-2, an orbiter and a lander and rover system, launched from Indian soil using an Indian rocket called GSLV Mark III on the afternoon of July 22.–
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3762/1
The GSLV Mark III rocket is interesting rocket:
“ISRO’s GSLV Mark III is a three-stage rocket with first and second stages filled with solid and liquid propellants, respectively. The third stage is a cryogenic stage. A cryogenic system is sought after since it provides more thrust per kilogram of propellants. The cryogenic engine uses liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid hydrogen (LH2) as propellants.”
It seems clunky, but the cryogenic stage is interesting.
“Since this rocket has the capability only to put satellites having less than two tons weight into orbit, ISRO felt the need to have a vehicle to put heavy satellites into geostationary orbits. That led to an offer from Glavkosmos, a Soviet agency.
Glavkosmos was to transfer cryogenic engine technology to India. However, when the actual transfer was to take place the geopolitical situation had changed, but Russia was required to honor the deal….
Hence, India was rejected access to the technology not owing to any missile fears, but more out of geopolitical (perhaps geo-economic) considerations.
All this led ISRO to slowly start developing cryogenic technology indigenously. ISRO took on itself to develop the GSLV programme, meant for heavy satellites in the range of 4 to 6 tons to GEO.”
The Lunar south Pole, where the lunar Axis of Rotation passes through!
Cool! Err…cold!
Oh wait a minute…
Anyhow this cool, if successful, it be first lander to get to lunar polar region.
What an absolute waste of money!
Especially given the level of poverty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Space_Research_Organisation
Indian Space Research Organisation
Formation 15 August 1969; 49 years ago
Budget:
₹12,473.26 crore (US$1.8 billion)(2019–20 est.)
Staff: 16,815 as of 2019
That is large amount people working there and they have yearly budget which 1/10th of NASA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA
Formed July 29, 1958; 60 years ago
Employees 17,219 (2019)
Annual budget US$21.5 billion (2019)
Sun not up yet, sky is very clear, many stars visible:
Directly overhead –> 26.4 F
Ground –> 64.4 F
When the clouds clear, there is little infrared returned to Earth. And what does come back can not raise surface temperatures. AGW/GHE is a hoax, along with many other things promoted by Institutionalized Pseudoscience.
Correction: -26.4 F (-32.4 C)
(Only first cup of coffee….)
Moe
Maybe this article will help you understand your own ignorance but that is most unlikely. You are an arrogant stupid poster and that means you think you are right regardless of facts, logic or actual evidence that proves you are a Moe.
” All agree that direct IR radiation in the main CO2 bands is absorbed well below 1 km above the earth.”
From:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
What you are measuring with your IR device is not the emitting IR from the atmosphere reaching the surface. Not that you are even close to smart enough or logical enough to understand that.
You can take a normal thermometer and find your air temperature is much warmer than 26.4 F. But you think what you need to Moe. It does not seem anyone here is able to reason with you.
What comes back can raise the temperature of the surface to a higher temperature than the meager energy returned if GHG was not present. You really are clueless about any science. You also are not able to learn any. You showed your arrogant stupidity when you think tell astronomers they need to study physics.
Moe you are much dumber than you think you are but since it is an arrogant stupidity you have convinced yourself you are smart.
Really a sad delusion.
Norman, you missed the correction. It is MINUS 26.4 F (-32.4 C).
That temperature correesponds to the total flux received by the IR thermometer, from directly overhead. The translation, for you, is that flux could NOT warm the surface. That’s the reality, but you run from reality.
Nothing new.
JD…”Sun not up yet, sky is very clear, many stars visible:”
Look for Venus early morning in NE sky near horizon. It should be quite bright.
Day 140.
140 days of denial on the “plates” from the GHEDT. Plus a few days now since there was yet another effortless debunking of that laughable nonsense.
Moon debate obviously settled a long time ago too, in our favor, it just occasionally gets brought up again to help educate more people.
Wow, 140 days.
Time sure flies by quickly when you’re having fun!
☺
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Moon debate obviously settled a long time ago too, in our favor
You are either delusional, or a troll, perhaps looking to bring traffic to this site.
Personally I think that your arguments are of a low quality, and your avoidance of relevant questions, makes it the latter.
David, please stop trolling.
Your admonitions are a waste of time, and an interruption of discussions.
#2
David, please stop trolling.
I’m not trolling.
: – )
#3
David, please stop trolling.
“Plus a few days now since there was yet another effortless debunking of that laughable no”
Har har har!
No dimit-troll you argument completely fell apart.
“Time sure flies by quickly when you’re having fun!”
It certainly does! We’ll be at 150 days before you know it. Then 200, then 300…their denial will never end.
Ordinarily arguments in science end because one side finds more and more factual support, and the other side doesnt, so their argument collapses.
That hasn’t stopped you guys.
The twin pillars supporting your argument:
Heat flow must tend to zero. Mystery energy that’s not heat can flow without a temperature gradient.
Unfortunately, you guys cannot/will not provide any facts that backup these pillars.
The pillars holding up your argument are simply made-up, empty, vacuous declarations.
Therefore your argument has collapsed. Debunked.
Only trolls will try to keep an obviously lost argument going forever.
Robertson
“The only rotation on the Moon is libration, which is an apparent rotation due to the view angle of a human from certain parts of Earth.”
*
Rob the dumbie was one more time telling us his daily nonsense.
He definitely drinks too much of this dangerous Canadian Mist in the evening.
*
Let’s recall Newton instead, writing in his Principia:
“PROPOSITIO XVII. THEOREMA XV.
Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, & librationem lunae ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.”
Translated into English, the sentence reads as follows:
“The diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
*
My humble guess is that it probably won’t take so very much time unitl we read on this blog:
Sir Isaac, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, as you seem interested in studying Newton, you should find his definition of “diurnal”, as used in the quotes you provided.
Then, find the current definition of “diurnal”.
That would start you learning what Newton is referring to.
Don’t drink Canadian whiskey, it can have adulterants in the mix.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Huffman
In 1687 exactly as today, the same meaning:
motus diurnus = daily movement
But alas: for all people who can’t manage to think of our Moon rotating, a Moon’s day can’t have any significance. That’s life.
Moreover, the difference between today’s meaning and that of earlier times does not play any role wrt Newton’s sentence I reproduced, because he had intended to show a similarity:
– (1) Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse
– (2) ex ipsius motu diurno
For him, the concept of a ‘day’ bypassed what most of us understand by a ‘day’: the nearly 24 hours Earth needs to rotate about its axis.
He generailsed the ‘day’ up to the period of any celestial body’s rotation about its own axis (“circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis”), no matter which celestial body he considered: the Sun, Earth, the Moon.
This ability to detect what is similar within things looking so different at a first glance, distinguishes Newton from most other scientists of his time.
But to understand that, one first has to emerge oneself out of the dark.
Your behavior is reminiscent of that of the Catholic Church before Galileo and Bruni.
Exactly like you say “The Moon does not rotate about its axis, and basta!”, the Church said “Earth does not rotate about the Sun!”.
One day, you will become an adult, and quit this childy circus. Maybe in ten years, maybe it will take even longer a time.
Be sure: one day you will quit.
Mostly it happens to us when we suddenly detect that some very simple questions require much more complex answers than we ever imagined.
*
I can live with your meaning, Huffman: everybody should have the right to think like s/he wants.
But you, Huffman, should conversely not try to force me to think the way you want.
Let me help you out, Bindidon.
The “diurnal” Newton was discussing refers to the time of sunlight and dark. On Earth, that is about 24 hours. But, on the Moon, that is about 28 days. Consequently, “diurnal” on the Moon is referring to its orbital period, since it is not rotating on its axis.
Does that help you understand what Gordon was pointing out about libration? Libration is the motion we see from Earth, due to the Moon’s orbital motion.
Huffman
Did you bypass this?
“But you, Huffman, should conversely not try to force me to think the way you want.”
Even if you try to tell me 10, 100, 1000 times this stuff based on your preferred narrative, you won’t succeed.
It will take you some time to get it. But I’m patient.
Buona notte
Bindidon, I know how confusing reality can be to clowns. I’m here to help.
JDH: “Libration is the motion we see from Earth, due to the Moon’s orbital motion.”
Gordon: “The only rotation on the Moon is libration, which is an apparent rotation due to the view angle of a human from certain parts of Earth.”
Newton: “…the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.”
I’m sure both Gordon and I would be willing to accept your sincere apology.
JD…”Im sure both Gordon and I would be willing to accept your sincere apology”.
Maybe…if Binny throws in a case of Lowenbrau.
Oh fuck,
Can’t you get decent beer in Canada?
bob d “Cant you get decent beer in Canada?”
Any beer we want. It’s just that Binny is in Germany and that’s the only German beer that came to mind.
Actually, a bar in Toronto was serving Lowenbrau on tap and it was cold and good. They also had Heineken on tap even though it’s Dutch.
Kokanee Gold is a good Canadian beer on tap.
No, it’s no longer German, it’s Anheuser-Busch InBev crap.
bob d…”No, its no longer German, its Anheuser-Busch InBev crap”.
Pity.
What’s the beer of choice down-under? All we hear about is Foster’s lager.
It’s been a while since a sheila has drawn me a pint, but Cooper’s Ale and VB were popular then.
Binny…”For him [Newton], the concept of a day bypassed what most of us understand by a day: the nearly 24 hours Earth needs to rotate about its axis”.
Of course, the Moon’s day/night cycle is 28 Earth days, as JD pointed out. You don’t think that fact would have eluded Newton, do you?
You can see it yourself. The full Moon occurs when the Sun shines directly on the Moon’s near surface from behind the Earth. A full Moon happens once per month.
Furthermore, a full Moon only occurs in the eastern sky since Earth’s night begins as the western horizon rises to block out the Sun. However, the Sun is shining fully onto the lunar surface. Night is really the only time we see the Moon, even though it does appears at times during the day.
When the Moon is not directly behind the Earth, you get crescent Moons since the Sun is shining on a lunar surface that we see only from an angle.
All of this night and day stuff is due to the lunar orbit and the different positions of the Moon around the orbit.
Night occurs on the far side of a full Moon lunar surface. Therefore the night/day ratio is over a month.
Robertson
You did not understand anything of what I wrote upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-368081
Read it again, sentence after sentence (instead of picking what you want to see only), even 10 times if necessary.
Under the day of any celaestial body, Newton understands the time this body needs to achieve one rotation about its axis.
That goes for the Sun, for the Earth, for Saturn, and … for the Moon.
No need for you to imagine things, Robertson. Read Newton’s Principia instead.
Bindidon, you keep overlooking the “relative to the stars”.
Maybe you need another 6 years of Latin. Then, you could start learning some physics.
Of course, finish your typing class first.
binny…”Under the day of any celaestial body, Newton understands the time this body needs to achieve one rotation about its axis”.
I have not read anything in works of Newton you provided that talks specifically of the Moon rotating on a local axis. He talked about external axes in which the Moon appears to rotate against the background stars. It does that however without rotating about a local axis.
The reason the Moon turns is due to the properties of its orbit. It is the Earth’s gravitational field causing it to turn away from a straight line momentum, however, it does that to the entire rigid body of the Moon in such a way that the Moon is not rotating about its axis.
Gordon: What would be the Moon’s motion if it DID rotate around its own axis while orbiting?
You would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Seriously, this question again? How many times, David?
DA,
It depends on the rotational speed. Per our resident stooges, with an orbital speed of 1 rotation per orbital period, the moon stops rotating. Anything greater or less than 1 rotation per orbital period and the moon starts to rotate again. Clown magic with a dash fake physics, and the occasional non-moving cartoon gif.
HGS does struggle with any sort of basic visualization.
Emergency: As you’re so good with visualizations, what would it look like, relative to the Sun, if the Earth’s rotation were slowed to one day per year?
It would look like the same response you got upthread when you asked this exact same question, you ridiculous troll.
Yet another refusal to answer a question.
A sensible refusal, given that it’s already been answered.
And now claiming that answers were somehow, somewhere, maybe just a little bit answered before.
Ha.
And now claiming that he isn’t fully aware that the question has been answered before.
Ha.
I’m now going to ignore you and your childlessness.
You can earn back the privilege of being noticed again, if you want to.
You will keep responding to me, generally, in the comments under this article. Why pretend otherwise?
Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team, please stop behaving like a 10 year old ministrant.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
binny…”Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop behaving like a 10 year old ministrant”.
Ministrant??? That’s someone who ministers. Or in the old days, a servant.
Did you mean a 10 year old miscreant? Like Norman, Stupid, Bally, or at times, yourself?
binny…”The diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion”.
Once again Binny replies with venom and no fact.
Of course, the libration related to the lunar orbit, which is viewed due to the different positions of the Moon in its orbit, is apparent against the stars.
In the more eccentric parts of the lunar orbits, humans can peek around the edges of the Moon, making it appear as if it is slightly rotating. Of course, it’s not, it just appears that way.
Roberson
1. “Once again Binny replies with venom…”
You perfectly know that you always start insulting others, especially me. And as always, I reply with a counter-insult.
Stop naming me (and others) a blithering idiot or pretending I would produce faked graphs, and you will experience polite persons.
But YOU have to do the first step, Robertson!
2. “… and no fact.”
You are diverting here, and dissimulating the fact that I do nothing else than citing Isaac Newton’s Principia.
Thus for thre umpteenth time, Robertson, here is Newton’s original text:
PROPOSITIO XVII. THEOREMA XV.
Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, & librationem lunae ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.
Translated into English, Newton’s Latin reads as follows:
The diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
Don’t try to divert, confuse, invent. Read Newton instead!
“The diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
Bindidon, you keep pasting that same quote. Do you even know what it means?
Huffman
“Bindidon, you keep pasting that same quote. ”
No reason for you to get into an argument between me and other commentators without being asked. But you are always pushing to intervene everywhere.
*
“Do you even know what it means?”
Yes, I know, Huffman; and I even suspect that you also know that, but love to keep all these things invisible which do not fit your self-centered narrative.
Bindidon says: “No reason for you to get into an argument between me and other commentators without being asked. But you are always pushing to intervene everywhere.”
Bindidon, I’ll try to remind you of that, in the future.
Bindidon claims he understands the quote: “Yes, I know…”
Bindidon believes he knows, but he can’t explain it. In fact, he can’t even understand it when it has been explained to him!
Gordon, the Moon is not appearing to rotate because of its libration is visible.
Its libration has nothing to do with its rotation, but with its elliptical orbit around the Earth.
The Moon rotates because someone standing on its surface sees the entire universe sweep across his field of vision in one lunar day.
How else would you measure “rotation?”
DA, you are STILL confusing “rotating on an axis” with “orbiting”.
You believe a blue jet is flying upside-down, half the time, as it orbits Earth.
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
You just can’t learn.
DA…”The Moon rotates because someone standing on its surface sees the entire universe sweep across his field of vision in one lunar day.
How else would you measure rotation?”
Rotation is normally defined as an angular momentum about an axis.
The original posit was that the Moon does nor rotate about its axis. Since then, many people have argued based on different reference frames or different definitions of rotation and revolution.
What you are describing above is due to the Moon revolving, as a rigid body, about the Earth’s axis. It’s called an orbit but as we (JD, Dremt, and myself) have agreed it could be described as a rotation about the Earth’s axis if you consider the motion of a radial line between Earth’s axis and the Moon’s centre.
It’s the motion of the Moon in that orbit that would allow someone standing on the Moon to see the stars appearing to move wrt to the observer.
That motion has nothing to do with a local rotation about the Moon’s axis. It is due to Earth’s gravitational field deviating the Moon’s linear motion into an angular motion (the orbit).
No matter what reference frame you use, there is no angular momentum about the Moon’s axis.
Gordon Robertson says:
DAHow else would you measure rotation?
Rotation is normally defined as an angular momentum about an axis.
What axis?
Gordan says:
Its the motion of the Moon in that orbit that would allow someone standing on the Moon to see the stars appearing to move wrt to the observer.
So what motion of the Moon WOULD NOT have someone on its surface seeing the universe sweep across her field of view?
What “what”?
What what
Describe your methodology for determining the Moon’s internal rotation rate.
NO, David.
What “what”?
That’s what I asked you. Why can’t you answer me?
This is the most fundamental question about this entire issue!
What “what”?
What “WHAT”, David?
Answer me! Or I win.
Answer me!
Answer me!
Answer me!
You claim the Moon isn’t rotating, but cannot come up with a definition of “rotation” or an algorithm by which it can be assessed if a celestial body is rotating or not.
What “what”, David?
Answer me!
Gordon shrieks:
“Rotation is normally defined as an angular momentum about an axis!”
Wrong. As usual, Gordon just lies and makes stuff up. Rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation. You do not need a force to describe rotation.
…but we’re talking about orbital motion, so you do need to consider the forces…
In case you missed it – Dr Roy – live on stage
https://youtu.be/f-3NppHBes0?t=914
Seen it before. Roy does a good job, he’s a good speaker.
I think he should be nominated for a Nobel Prize for the work he has done standing up to idiots pushing catastrophic global warming/climate change. He’s a voice of reason amid the cacophony of alarmism.
I think John Christy of UAH already has his share of a Nobel, only fair that Roy be recognized.
Roy would have had a share if he had volunteered for an IPCC AR.
DA…”Roy would have had a share if he had volunteered for an IPCC AR.”
Not sure that Roy would want to share a Nobel with Al Gore. It was imposed on John Christy.
Why did John Christy volunteer for an IPCC AR committee?
David, please stop trolling.
As Dr Spencer pointed out –
“7) The Earth is always in the same part of the lunar sky”
The Earth orbits the Sun. The Sun appears to rise and set, viewed from the Earth. This is because the Earth rotates on its axis.
The Moon orbits the Earth. The Earth does not appear to rise and set, viewed from the Earth. This is because –
a) the Moon does not rotate on its axis, or
b) magic.
GHE true believers invariably pick b). This choice is justified by misguided appeals to dubious authority such as NASA, and convoluted redefinitions of rotation, along with slightly bizarre attempts to dismiss Newton’s Laws of Motion as pointless, irrelevant, and wrong.
Certainly, if the Earth remains in the same part of the lunar sky, and the Sun does not remain in the same place in the Terran sky, then “rotation” is obviously defined differently on the Moon as opposed to the Earth. Maybe GHE true believers are dyed in the wool Lunatics, and believe that the Lunatic definition of “rotation” really means “not rotating as the Earth does about its axis while simultaneously orbiting its parent body”.
Lunatics also remain firmly convinced that adding an atmosphere containing 4 parts per 10,000 of CO2 to the Moon would increase Lunar temperatures from their current maximum of 127 C, to something 33 C hotter! Maybe 160 C? They probably call this particular piece of Lunacy “the greenhouse effect”. More Lunatic magic, of course!
The Moon obviously does not “rotate” in the same sense as the Earth. Anybody who believes otherwise is obviously a Lunatic.
I rest my case.
Cheers.
mike flynn…well thought out, Mike.
GR,
Thanks.
Cheers.
MF takes a compliment from a clown who can’t understand the simple concept of curvilinear translation, and thanks him. He must have low standards, or he doesn’t get it as well.
HGS couldn’t follow Mike’s clear, simple logic. Oh dear.
stupid…”MF takes a compliment from a clown who cant understand the simple concept of curvilinear translation…”
Said by ‘Stupid’ who has no basic understanding of calculus or physics. Stupid thinks that concentric circles are not parallel to each other and that particles traveling in concentric orbits can cross each other to produce local rotation about the axis that is on one of the concentric circles.
Stupid’s comment proves that intelligence cannot be taught. You can read all you want but if you lack the intelligence to understand what you read, and the awareness/insight to apply it, you are doomed to remain ‘stupid’.
Therefore, you’re only outlet when reading someone who does understand is to slag him.
Gordon: Provide an algorithm to determine if a celestial body is rotating or not.
David: dance a jig whilst balancing a coffee cup on your head.
You have become
too childish to
reply to.
Please let me know how much more childish I need to be before you actually stop responding.
Provide an algorithm to determine if a celestial body is rotating or not.
Why is that so difficult?
You claim the Moon isn’t rotating, yet you won’t define the criteria by which the rest of us can decide that or not.
How come?
Gordon,
I answered every one of your stupid questions up-thread.
You seriously do not understand curvilinear translation.
Gordon squeals like a girl:
“Stupid thinks that concentric circles are not parallel to each other”
Of course they are, Einstein. But the criteria for curvilinear tranlation is that every line in the body remains parallel to its
original position at all times, not that all parts move parallel to one another as you insanely state. You just make up your own wrong definitions, clown.
And then you were so dense that you could not figure out how a body could follow a curved path and not change orientation!! What do you think the seat of a ferris wheel is doing? Not changing orientation and following a curve, Einstein.
And then you keep insisting that a criteria for curvilinear translation is that all parts the body move at the same angular velocity! NO! The criteria is all points move at the same VELOCITY, NOT angular velocity.
[https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
Per the above link:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.”
Velocity, not angular velocity. The above definition contain all you need to know regarding translation and curvilinear translation. But you insist on making up your own definitions.
This quote of yours takes the cake:
“All points on the Moon, at any instant, are moving in a straight line at the same velocity.”
The edge of the moon closest to earth is moving slower than the far side edge of the moon. They are at different radii, Einstein, so different velocities. Therefore per the criteria, the moon is not translating.
HGS is still banging the same drum, oblivious to why it’s irrelevant…
This makes is perfectly clear, Gordon:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.”
It clear that for translation, all points have the same VELOCITY, not angular velocity, because the term “angular velocity” is used in the next definition for rotation about a fixed axis.
Bummer, man.
[https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
I think if you explain the exact same thing another two hundred times, you’ll definitely win the argument.
Gordon,
It’s time you get a refund from the fake university you attended and obtained your fake engineering degree.
I think if you fail to explain the exact same things another two hundred times, you guys will have still lost the argument.
HGS, please stop trolling.
Wkipedia: “Lunatic is an antiquated term referring to a person who is seen as mentally ill, dangerous, foolish, unpredictable, or crazyconditions once attributed to lunacy. The word derives from lunaticus meaning “of the moon” or “moonstruck”. The term was once commonly used in law.”
Yes, it appears many are afflicted on this site.
pP,
Thank you for your support. Much appreciated.
Cheers.
prof puke…” it appears many are afflicted on this site”.
Especially the messenger, who has contributed nothing more on this blog than ad homs and insults.
You profess a background in psychology but fail to grasp that those who see fault in others often suffer the same maladies.
Flynn
A. “As Dr Spencer pointed out
7) The Earth is always in the same part of the lunar sky
The Earth orbits the Sun. The Sun appears to rise and set, viewed from the Earth. This is because the Earth rotates on its axis.
The Moon orbits the Earth. The Earth does not appear to rise and set, viewed from the [correct: Moon]. This is because
a) the Moon does not rotate on its axis, or
b) magic.
*
This is nonsense a la Flynn, who thinks he’s right without having studied anything in the domain. I didn’t either, Flynn, and would never allow myself to simply suppose things and to write them on a blog. I refer to knowledge (what you intentionally set equal to ‘appeal for authority’).
The two situations of Earth and Moon are not comparable.
Look at the Latin texts I had to duplicate ad nauseam because Robertson forgot them all the time. And you will see Newton clearly stating in these texts that while Earth rotates every 24h about its axis, it takes the Moon over 27 days to do, namely as much time as it needs to orbit Earth. HIS WORDS, Flynn, and NOT MINE.
Fly to the moon, Flynn, and set up a movie camera there to film the movements of Earth for the time of a complete Moon’s rotation, without interruption. Then we’ll see.
*
B. “GHE true believers invariably pick b).”
*
So, do they?
It was until now not known to me that people like
– SkepticGoneWild alias HuffmanGoneStupid
– Stephen P Anderson
– Eben
would have ever behaved like ‘GHE true believers’. Exactly the contrary is the case. I am indeed a GHE believer, to the same extent as is Roy Spencer.
But I don’t pick your (b) magic, Flynn. I pick Newton’s Principia (what you manifestly ignore).
*
C. “This choice is justified by misguided appeals to dubious authority such as NASA,…”
No one here appeals to NASA’s authority. That is an invention of Robertson, Flynn etc. Confuse, divert, and…
*
D. “… along with slightly bizarre attempts to dismiss Newtons Laws of Motion as pointless, irrelevant, and wrong.”
*
So? Where are these attempts, Flynn?
Show me them!
b,
You wrote –
“Fly to the moon, Flynn, and set up a movie camera there to film the movements of Earth for the time of a complete Moons rotation, without interruption. Then well see.l
What a foolish demand! It is a matter of simple observation – one face of the Moon constantly faces the Earth. As Dr Spencer points out, this means that “7) The Earth is always in the same part of the lunar sky”
How could it be otherwise? No amount of demanding that the Moon rotate about its axis will change reality.
From NASA – “As a result, when viewed from the Moon, the Earth will always remain in about the same spot in the sky all the time!”
This means that a camera (movie or otherwise) pointed at the Earth from the visible portion of the Moon’s surface will remain pointed at the Earth all the way around the Moon’s orbit. There will small apparent movements due to orbital irregularities and inclinations, of course.
Maybe it is time for you to misinterpret Newton’s observations again, and ignore clearly observable fact.
Cheers.
binny…”…set up a movie camera there to film the movements of Earth for the time of a complete Moons rotation, without interruption. Then well see”.
As Mike pointed out, if you point a camera at the Moon from the near face, the Earth will always be in your viewfinder.
Conversely, if you’re on the dark side and point a camera out to space, you’ll never see the Earth. Have you not answered your own question?
How does the dark side swing around so the camera would point at Earth? If it can’t rotate to view the Earth, the Moon is not rotating locally.
Gordon wrote:
Conversely, if youre on the dark side and point a camera out to space, youll never see the Earth
What will you see?
David, being an unbelievably relentless troll.
: – )
…and you’re proud of it.
Flynn, Robertson
As usual, ridiculous comments based on unverifiable assumptions.
Todaythe weather is too good to be wasted with such blah blah.
Keep on boasting!
Speaking from the mooncalf corral.
The fourth stooge appears: Shemp.
So that’s Mike, Gordon, JD, DREMT, gbaikie, this Martin fellow, ftop_t has argued on the “Non-Spinner” side, plus AndyG55 at one point…so that’s 8 people. I believe JD said there was about 6-8 of us on here, seems he was exactly right once again. That doesn’t jibe with their “Three Stooges” BS. Shame.
Explain why NASA is wrong on lunar rotation.
Please see the preceding 1000+ comment discussion.
You *can’t* explain why NASA is wrong.
Typical of your meaningless responses and bail-outs.
#2
Please see the preceding 1000+ comment discussion.
DA does the blue jet fly upside-down at some point, as it circles the globe?
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
If you say “yes”, then your career as a clown is guaranteed.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Please see the preceding 1000+ comment discussion.
More avoidance.
#3
Please see the preceding 1000+ comment discussion.
What I’ve asked for is the algorithm you use to determine if a celestial body is rotating or not.
And you’re reacted like this is so hot you can’t possibly touch it.
Your only response is to try to shut me up.
You were not asking for that on this particular sub-thread. Why pretend you were?
I shouldn’t disrespect the real stooges like that.
Yes, those famous Eight Stooges.
Ey Roy no body went to the moon, that was a psicological deception operation, nasa lies, it seem you believe that hoax…
Oh oui! Et les empreintes des pieds des astronautes furent dessinées d'ici au laser, n'est-ce pas?
*
Oh yes! And the astronauts’ footprints were drawn from here by laser, right?
Just this month I heard about the new definition of “heat wave”. Apparently NOAA has now defined a “heat wave” to be two consecutive days above the average temperature for the area/day. Since temperatures deviate around the average, that definition means a “heat wave” could now occur about every week or so, even in winters!
“A heat wave is a period of unusually hot weather that typically lasts two or more days. To be considered a heat wave, the temperatures have to be outside the historical averages for a given area.”
Add to that the fact that “Weather Bimbos” are some of the highest paid people on live TV, and you have the makings for even more scary “news” to fool the braindead.
The hoax continues.
You missed an important “s”, JD. Read carefully: “outside the historical averages“.
While this brief description does not go into details, it is clear they mean something like “more than 1 standard deviation above average” or “occurring less than once per decade in the past”. They definitely do NOT mean “any temperature above the historical average” as you incorrectly infer.
And yes, “heat waves” happen in the winter. If temperatures in my area hit 15 C in January, that would be remarkably warm and could be called “a heat wave”.
Tim, are you attempting to claim NOAA is doing it wrong, as you attempt to defend them?
I love it when clowns get tangled up in their pseudoscience.
JD, you quoted a description of “heat wave” taken from a website aimed at 6-12 grade students (https://scijinks.gov/heat/), not some ‘official definition’ for scientists. They are not “doing it wrong” when they provide a junior high level explanations to junior high students.
The fact that you misinterpret information aimed and junior high students would seem to tell us something …
He he. Ha ha.
David, please stop trolling.
Tim, in your closed mind you believe it is okay to mislead young students.
That should tell you something.
“The World Meteorological Organization, defines a heat wave as 5 or more consecutive days of prolonged heat in which the daily maximum temperature is higher than the average maximum temperature by 9 F or more.”
Well, if true, that makes more sense than NOAA’s “2 days”.
JD…”Apparently NOAA has now defined a heat wave to be two consecutive days above the average temperature for the area/day”.
NOAA’s cheating on behalf of catastrophic AGW knows no bounds.
No matter what propaganda they issue, the 1930’s in the US still holds the record for heat waves, by a long shot. 1934 is still the hottest year in the US.
Gordon: what data supports your claim about the 1930s?
Link(s) please.
DA…Link(s) please.
https://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/
If you want specifics you’ll have to dig through the site. The story is that GISS tried secretly to replace 1934 with 1998 but Steve McIntyre of climateaudit caught them, forcing GISS to re-instate 1934.
More generally, re GISS bs…
https://climateaudit.org/2007/08/20/computer-programming-and-the-destruction-of-creation/
And more still….
https://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=130
https://news.mongabay.com/2007/08/nasa-admits-to-error-in-global-warming-data/
There is a graph and tables at this link ranking the warmest years in US.
Wow, my comment was deleted a 2nd time.
Roy? What’s going on here?
—
GR, these data prove you wrong:
NOAA USA48
https://is.gd/a2o0eB
1934 is only 7th higher in the USA48 record.
What’s going on here is your usual nervous breakdown, in slow motion.
You call me crazy for the crime of presenting data.
No, it’s for the paranoia that Dr Spencer is doing something to your comments…
DA wanted data that showed NOAA wrong. So Gordon provided several links. Than, DA claimed those links were wrong because it doesn’t agree with NOAA data!
And, in DA’s warped head, that’s logical….
PS NOAA said 2014 was the hottest year on record, but later clarified there was less than a 50-50 chance that was correct. That’s not science, that’s “agenda”.
Yep, just look at this scary AFP report – “Glaciers are melting. Mountains are crumbling. In the Mont Blanc range many popular and famous routes up or through the peaks have become too dangerous to hike, victims of a warming planet.”
Honestly, who makes this stuff up?
In what scientific way do you disagree with the article (which you didn’t even link to)?
DA, there you go again.
You pretend you know the “scientific way”, but you run from reality.
Get your act together before you ask your lame questions.
DMT…”In the Mont Blanc range many popular and famous routes up or through the peaks have become too dangerous to hike, victims of a warming planet”.
Who the heck ‘hikes’ in the Mount Blanc region? There may be hiking trails down in the valleys, but the peaks around Blanc are only accessible through serious climbing.
No one in their right mind tries climbing Blanc or any other major Alps peak in winter. Hikers don’t go anywhere near the area in winter. So the article is referring to summer.
During the Little Ice Age, glaciers in that region expanded in a major way. A glacier near Chamonix expanded right across a valley and wiped out a town. Since 1850, when the LIA ended, those glaciers have been slowly retreating.
During winter, the upper glaciers are replenished with plenty of snow. The eco-weenies have been making a big deal out of glacier toes retreating a few hundred feet.
Gordon: why are global temperatures now higher than they were during the beginning of the LIA?
DA,
Why are global temperatures lower now than previously?
Because the Earth has cooled since the surface was molten, that’s why!
Obviously, too complicated for you to work out for yourself, so I had to help you out. You don’t need to thank me, it’s always a pleasure to help those less gifted than myself.
Cheers.
DA…”Gordon: why are global temperatures now higher than they were during the beginning of the LIA?”
It’s the opposite. Temperatures were higher during the Medieval Warm Period. They were farming on Greenland.
That means the Greenland glaciers were melting and nothing happened.
I’ll bet the Roman Warm Period was as hot or hotter.
Gordon Robertson says:
Temperatures were higher during the Medieval Warm Period. They were farming on Greenland.
According to what global data?
Ill bet the Roman Warm Period was as hot or hotter
According to what global data?
Gordon?
You skipped over the reply….
David, please stop trolling.
Some pick a short description (which in my mind is anyway completely wrong).
Sow prefer to read the page, and find e.g.
You see, theres hot and then theres HOT.
One example of a HOT time was in late June and early July 2012 in the United States.
During that time period, more than 8,000 warm temperature records were broken or tied.
Many of these records had been unchallenged since the 1930s.
Roads actually buckled in Chicago. Many deaths were attributed to the heat nationwide.
Looks all like heat waves in Europe in 2003 and… this year, but not everywhere!
While the June 2019 anomaly wrt the mean of 1981-2010 when averaging all German weather stations was 4.5 C, the single station in Spain with the highest June 2019 anomaly was only 2 C.
In Spain, there was indeed something like a ‘cold wave’. When moving from San Sebastian in Northeastern Spain to Montpeller located 200 km away in France, you might have experienced at the end of June a temperature difference of 25 C.
Look at this example of desperate alarmism. Maybe it has something to do with their fear and hatred of Donald Trump or Boris Johnson. I don’t know.
“Soaring temperatures have broken records in Germany, France and the Netherlands, as a heatwave gripped Europe for the second time in a month, while experts warned the heat could move north towards Greenland causing record ice melts.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-27/europe-hit-by-heatwave-and-hailstorms/11352766
It’s very clear you’re just trolling.
So please leave.
David, please stop trolling and leave.
: – )
Well, if you’re going to ask someone else to leave…you’re probably the most disruptive person on this blog…why shouldn’t you be asked to leave?
I’m happy to be the most disruptive person here, among a squirming thicket of deniers….
I’m glad you acknowledge that you’re a troll.
Never wrote I was a troll….
It’s time for you to shut up and start answer the scientific questions here….
Well, you said you were glad to be disruptive. I would say that is as good as admitting you are a troll. You’re certainly behaving like a child at the moment.
“Disruptive” hardly means being a troll.
It means, in part, asking questions that trolls like you are afraid to answer.
You just ask the same questions over and over again, until people tire of giving you answers, so that you can make it look like people are “unable” to answer…when in fact they are just utterly bored of you. And that has been your primary tactic since the first day you started commenting here.
When you start answering questions here, send up a flag so the rest of us will know.
When you stop with your tedious and utterly predictable tactics, send up a flag so the rest of us will know that the blog is safe to comment at again.
Waiting.
Yes, we are. For you.
I’m just asking for your criteria that you use to determine if a celestial body is rotating or not.
You won’t say.
We’re still waiting for you, David.
binny…”Many of these records had been unchallenged since the 1930s”.
How can a modern record be challenged retroactively? It’s the other way around. No modern temperature has exceeded the temperatures of the 1930s in the US.
And please don’t quote me the fudged 1930’s GHCN data.
Gordon: Can you at least acknowledge that
1) UAH adjusts the raw data, and
2) The adjustments to raw surface temperatures reduces the long-term warming trend?
DA…”1) UAH adjusts the raw data, and”
UAH does not adjust raw data in a malicious or unscientific manner as does NOAA. NOAA synthesizes temperatures using statistical interpolation and homogenization. In fact, most of the NOAA surface data is synthesized (fudged). There is no way they could cover the oceans with current instrumentation or the Arctic/Antarctic so they fudge the surface data using statistical methods.
NOAA created a post 1998 trend by fudging the SST, after the IPCC had announced a flat trend from 1998 – 2012.
UAH adjusts for discrepancies between satellite orbits, etc. If any adjustment is made it’s to adjust for mechanical variations in instruments. UAH does not create data or fudge raw data as does NOAA.
DA…”1) UAH adjusts the raw data, and”
UAH does not adjust raw data in a mali.c.i.ous or un.sci.entific manner as does NOAA. NOAA syn.the.sizes temperatures using stat.ist.ical inter.pol.ation and homogenization. In fact, most of the NOAA surface data is syn.the.sized (fudged). There is no way they could cover the oceans with current inst.rum.ent.ation or the Arctic/Antarctic so they fudge the surface data using stat.is.tical methods.
NOAA created a post 1998 trend by fudging the SST, after the IPCC had ann.ou.nced a flat trend from 1998 – 2012.
UAH adjusts for dis.cre.pan.cies between satellite orbits, etc. If any adj.us.tment is made it’s to adjust for mechanical var.iat.ions in inst.rum.ents. UAH does not create data or fudge raw data as does NOAA, who thinks nothing of ret.roa.ct.iv.ely changing raw data to what they think it SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
Gordon: Thanks for finally admitting that UAH extrapolates over multiple satellites. Is it 11 now, or maybe 13? Who can keep up…. They’re comparing satellite measurements taken today to those taken 13 satellites ago.
What’s the error in those 13 extrapolations, Gordon?
—
You clearly have no idea why N.O.A.A. adjusts the raw data.
Go learn and we can discuss here again.
Learn that THE ADJUSTMENTS REDUCE THE LONG-TERM WARMING TREND.
You clearly think the trend should be higher.
Why, Gordon? Why do you want the trend to be even higher? What’s in that for you
David, please stop trolling.
Check out this latest bit of alarmism. They seem to be getting more and more desperate. Why? I don’t know. Maybe something to do with upcoming elections in the US and UK?
“Soaring temperatures have broken records in Germany, France and the Netherlands, as a heatwave gripped Europe for the second time in a month, while experts warned the heat could move north towards Greenland causing record ice melts.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-27/europe-hit-by-heatwave-and-hailstorms/11352766
Apologies for the repeat post.
Which thermometer readings do you disagree with?
What do your thermometers show?
David, please stop trolling.
DMT: Which thermometer readings do you disagree with?
What do your own thermometers show?
#2
David, please stop trolling.
DREMT:
: – )
#3
David, please stop trolling.
I’m not trolling.
: – )
#4
David, please stop trolling.
I’m not trolling : – )
#5
David, please stop trolling.
F. U.
#6
David, please stop trolling.
‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.’
#7
David, please stop trolling.
Keep counting….
#8
David, please stop trolling.
DMT,
I particularly liked this piece of inanity –
” . . . while experts warned the heat could move north ”
Oh dear! No wonder Feynman said that science is belief in the ignorance of experts. Heat does not move anywhere. The experts referred to are probably the same type of ignoramus who believes that climate change is responsible for weather!
Do these dimwits not realise that thermometers respond to heat as they are designed to do? Not CO2, not climate change, not non-existent greenhouse effects!
Oh, well. I suppose neither the journalists nor the experts are inclined to get real jobs, so they just keep pumping out nonsense.
Cheers.
DA pretends to want actual data “What do your thermometers show?”
*******
Sun not up, stars out, clear sky,
Directly overhead –> -23.4 F (-30.8 C)
Ground –> 67.8 F (19.9 C)
*******
Close to noon, bright sun, blue sky,
Directly overhead –> -15.7 F (-26.5 C)
Lawn, in shade –> 82.1 F
Lawn, in full sun –> 97.1 F
Concrete driveway–> 110.8 F
Notice that with the Sun up, the flux from the sky increases, effectively showing a 7.7 degree F increase.
It’s the Sun, stupid.
Norman hasn’t shown up yet to try to rebut yesterday’s temperature readings. Likely he’s too busy searching the Internet, trying to find some way to discredit Stefan/Boltzmann.
He’ll return with another long typing exercise, filled with his usual insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, along with some links he can’t understand.
Nothing new.
I shouldn’t disrespect the real stooges like that.
Child, with nothing to offer, you just replicate other clowns like Norman and fluffball.
But, obviously you set your goals no higher.
As Mike Flynn would say, “carry on”.
Never wrote I was a troll….
It’s time for you to shut up and start answer the scientific questions here….
David, please stop trolling.
You’re trolling, not me.
#2
David, please stop trolling.
“insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
…but David, you know what result you’re going to get…the numbers are a clue (I’ll happily go up to six digits, if necessary)…so why do you keep doing the same thing over and over?
#3
David, please stop trolling.
Your mouth is flapping again.
Troll, begone!
DMT, you would have to be the stupidest poster on this site. Worse than the 3 stooges in my opinion. (I exclude ren since he obviously has some disability).
Ian, please stop trolling.
Pay him no mind, Ian — DREMT is just a puppy around here.
David, please stop trolling.
(Ha ha, he also called him Ian).
Emergency is a puppy because he won’t say how to determine if a celestial body is rotating or not.
Begone, troll!
Hey, those trolling points are for me, not DA!
Begone, troll!
That’s better. Thanks.
Ian, please stop trolling.
DA…”You clearly have no idea why N.O.A.A. adjusts the raw data”.
I know for sure.
NOAA is a sock-puppet of Democrat administrations, who have wasted the time of the US citizens the past two years creating a witch hunt of Trump, for no other reason than he beat them fair and square.
And that’s coming from an admitted left-winger.
The Obama admin instructed NOAA to find support for the AGW theory and they loaded the EPA and NOAA with climate alarmist in that pursuit.
Most of the data on US government sites that does not support AGW has been eradicated. Such as the following:
-this link proves NOAA was only using 6000 surface station globally to measure surface temperature and slashed that number to less than 1500. That’s right, they use less than 1500 stations to manufacture thousands of artificial surface data stations using a climate model.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150410045648/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Gordon Robertson says:
The Obama admin instructed NOAA to find support for the AGW theory and they loaded the EPA and NOAA with climate alarmist in that pursuit.
Prove it. Show us the documents.
DA…”The Obama admin instructed NOAA to find support for the AGW theory and they loaded the EPA and NOAA with climate alarmist in that pursuit”.
“Prove it. Show us the documents”.
No need to, NOAA rushed out a report to support the Obama admin at the Paris climate talks. They bypassed internal protocol in doing so. Like I said, NOAA is a sock-puppet for the Democrat eco-weenies.
GR, you are about as left wing as my right foot.
Gordon is Canadian.
Canadians lefties don’t like US lefties.
Even though they read the same doctrine
Though Lefties or just Canadians in general are not too fond of any US politics.
But as general rule Lefties don’t like other Lefties, as in eating there own is common- and don’t even have to step out of a country.
As in AOC called Pelosi a racist.
So merely be a difference of age.
What important is if you adhere strictly to whatever crazy nonsense which fashionable to some dominate group.
They are like Muslims, only far, far worse.
At least Muslims are aware that issues are ancient.
Lefties imagine everything is new.
gbaikie, I also dislike poor grammar- even if it is only blogging. Is English your second language?
Only blogging?
From all the apparent fury, it seems some imagine
it’s quite important
I want to write a book.
It’s very, very silly desire.
Yes?
I doubt, I will be able to do it.
You will need an editor.
“It’s A very,very silly desire.”
“I doubt I will be able to do it.” (no comma)
Ian, please stop trolling.
DA keeps asking how to determine if an orbiting body is also rotating on its axis.
Of course DA doesn’t really want an answer. He is just trying to confuse the issue. But, for anyone interested in the physics, if an orbiting body always presents the same face to the inside of the orbit, then the body is NOT rotating on its axis. Easy-to-verify examples are a racehorse, running around an oval track, a blue jet circling the globe…
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
…and the Moon.
Nope JD mooncalf, you fail to understand axial rotation and orbital mechanics.
If a body always presents the same face to the inside of an orbit, that’s an example of synchronous rotation where the orbital period and rotational period are the same, and the body is indeed rotating.
Like your stupid jet diagram, it is obvious the jet is spinning as it does not face the same direction all the time as it flies around the globe.
bob, in your frame of reference, the blue jet is flying upside-down for part of one orbit.
And, you believe you understand orbital motion!
The jet is NOT flying upside-down. It is NOT rotating on its axis.
You’re just braindead.
Mooncalf, I didn’t say it was flying upside down, did I?
Does the nose always point in the same direction, mooncalf?
If not, then it is rotating.
If it is rotating, then it has an axis around which it is rotating.
“Does the nose always point in the same direction, mooncalf?”
Technically, yes, if it’s flying around the equator. It’s always going to be pointing East, or West, depending on which way it’s going.
Technically no,
East nor west are not fixed directions because they are relative to a large round object, not to what the old astronomers referred to as the fixed stars.
Which later astronomers found out were not so fixed.
OK, blob.
All questions DA asks have either already been answered elsewhere, or he could answer himself, or are completely irrelevant. The only reason he asks questions is because once people can’t be bothered to keep responding to him, it will appear to others as though they “can’t answer” his questions. It’s just a simple attempt to mislead others, on his part.
JDH, that was a very pretty picture you made out of felt pieces. The other children will be impressed.
Yes, I thought you kids would like it.
Science is NOT God but often usurps the place reserved only for HIM! Science is therefore limited in many respects and does not provide exhaustive data over requisite time periods. In fact, that is not the nature or role of science since it is impossible to do so. Instead, it extrapolates based upon present day observations and does not account for any unknowable changes that may have been present in the past. In that sense it is as myopic as anyone who immerses him or herself in theological analysis without consideration of other disciplines in any measure. As for the credibility of a moon walk by mankind that too is an UNPROVABLE proposition. Thus you must exercise some kind of faith or belief that what is being stated is actually fact and not some imagined fairytale. There are ample reasons and evidence that could justify ones position either way!
Therefore, instead of going to the HISTORICAL & literary source for an answer man attempts to explain what God has already said: “Let there be light and there was light”! Gen 1:3. It is almost mindboggling that men will conflagrate themselves in attempts to explain the inexplicable while assuming the position of the Most High God. Yet in either case, both science and faith, are at a complete loss to factually PROVE any claim that theirs is the correct interpretation of the universe around them. It is all based upon conjecture, presupposition, hypothesis and interpretation! Evidence is viewed and interpreted according to each ones learned bias or propensity by (human) nature to suppress the truth in unrighteousness! Furthermore, science uses a blanket statement attributing the whole of the created universe with all of its organized attributes to have happened by “chance”! Chance is NOTHING! It is not an entity and it has no power to create anything. Thus, RC Sproul and his analysis of modern day cosmology is spot on in this regard! His book entitled NOT A CHANCE: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology is as credible as any Darwinian indoctrination! Obviously, it is clear where my bias lies!
There is no evidence of god.
bob, is that what your false religion teaches?
I don’t have a religion, mooncalf.
You don’t have a soul. That’s your problem.
But I have soul, mooncalf.
Question for you poynting vector expert.
If you have a vector force acting on an object perpendicular to the objects direction of travel, what happens?
See? No matter the religious belief, everyone still accepts the concept of a soul. Funny that.
No Mooncalf DREMPT,
I used a totally different definition of the word soul.
“Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings”
However you want to rationalize it is fine with me, blob.
Moon landings and global warming. “It is all based upon conjecture, presupposition, hypothesis and interpretation! ” Go, Go Fish. I may not be religious but I am with you on this.
The difference between “Moon landings” and “Global warming” is that “Moon landings” can predict the future.
One could say science predicts the future and God [or etc] makes the future.
“Global warming” is not good at either. Bad science and bad religion.
Go Fish
Thanks for your very professional Christian indoctrination.
I respect your views though I do not at all share them, so please respect the views of those who do not share yours.
But let me say you this: just like I don’t know anything about religion, you don’t know anything about science. Nothing.
Live in peace!
Bindidon, you don’t know anything about religion, or science.
But, at least you can type….
Live in peace!
Huffman
“… or science.”
As long as people like you (or, alternatively: The Great Moderator, or Flynn, or Robertson) tell me I don’t know anything about science, I think all is well for me.
Jesus! People denying principles like time dilation telling me such things? Ha ha ha haaah.
Weiter so, Huffman! Weiter so.
Believing that a theory is a “principle” is a good example of perverting science, Bind.
But, I was thinking more of your inability to understand that a racehorse is not rotating on its axis, among other concepts.
Huffman
Be, at least once, courageous.
Lease a few atomic clocks (different models) and record what they measure at home.
Take all minus one with you on an airplane, travel a few hours with the clocks at an altitude of 15 km, record what they measure, come back home, and compare the whole stuff.
You will then experience how a theory combined with hundreds of proofs in practice (including yours) can evolve up to a principle.
But I know: you won’t.
Because it is so nice and comfortable to pretend things as an anonymous on a blog lacking any scientific moderation.
*
You, Huffman, are all but a real science man.
No real science man discredits as pseudoscience nearly everything he either does not accept, let alone would uderstand.
Bind, are you trying to be the EU’s version of the rambling typist? Your use of insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations has increased. And now, you are pulling out the “do the experiment” trick.
I suppose, when reality does not support your agenda, you have to use all your tricks.
Go Fish,
Prior to Ben Franklin, lightning was just an ‘act of God’ and if it burned your house down, oh well, its God’s will.
Prior to Doppler radar, we didnt get timely tornado warnings, and if an EF 5 tornado killed a bunch of families, it was just ‘an act of God.’
Prior to Penicillin…people could easily die from an ordinary infection, etc, etc.
How do you feel about the concept of, if there is a God, she agave us a big brain for a reason?
Would she expect us to use our big brain to develop science and solve our problems, or just turn it off and say: ‘its an act of God’?
I see that several posters enjoy their conflagration and parsing of words while kowtowing to man’s supposed superior knowledge of all things manifest! What’s more disconcerting is that in the face of the evidence you choose to gloss over it.
For the fool that says there is no evidence; explain how history records (and especially Jewish history) surmises the idea of a Creator and creation? How about the man Jesus does not history record his existence? If it does and he DID NOT RISE FROM THE DEAD then all one would have had to do is present his physical body in the public square for all to see. But history NEVER tells us this is what happened. Moreover, a Roman guard was posted at the tomb of his burial. The punishment for them would have been certain death if the body was stolen as fools surmise. But there is more, much more historically, archeologically, literarily and scientifically (as in DNA evidence is clear that a mutation is not an improvement within a species as evolution suggests and one species CANNOT become another; while the 2nd law of thermodynamics says, in layman’s terms, things break down over time; not improve) but that would make no difference to the haughty ones who are so full of themselves they cannot see reality though it smack them in the face! Remember, yours is an interpretation just as much as mine is!!!!!!!!!
Go Fish
“For the fool that says there is no evidence…”
Why are the fool? Just because they do not believe in what you do believe?
Jesus, what are you an intolerant person!
Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
“NEW YORK—If you, me and every person and thing in the cosmos were actually characters in some giant computer game, we would not necessarily know it. The idea that the universe is a simulation sounds more like the plot of “The Matrix,” but it is also a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Researchers pondered the controversial notion Tuesday at the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate here at the American Museum of Natural History.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
This is not a lot different that all great religions.
A book or now, it’s Computer Simulation {because we have computers}.
Such ideas, how live your life is important in the afterlife
Or afterlife is important then present life.
Go Fish,
“Remember, yours is an interpretation just as much as mine is!!!!!!!!!”
The difference between religion and science is that science ideas are testable and FALSIFIABLE. And no one dies by the process.
While religious ideas, not so.
General Relativity: testable and falsifiable. Passed every test so far, but still might be falsified some day.
Epicycles: nice idea but ultimately falsified.
Your interpretation of the Holy Trinity is totally wrong.
I can’t prove you wrong. Still, I think you should be burned.
Let’s have a 30 year war to figure out whose right.
Thats’s also religion’s legacy.
An interesting detail concerning this ‘Go Fish’ is that about 6000 years ago, Mankind started venerating the Bull (I suppose it was during the Minoan era).
About 2000 years later, a new religion came up, now venerating the Aries. This was, if I well do remember, an epoch known also as that of ‘Amon-Baal’.
Another 2000 years later, there was again a transition, now standing under the Fish sign.
*
50 years ago, I read an interesting book about all that, and the book’s explanation for these eras, all lasting about 2000 years, was that these transitions all were due to Earth’s axial precession leading to a change of the star constellations in the sky.
There are 12 of them, named like the signs of the zodiac, but turning in the inverse direction.
Did anybody else read about that?
Are we ‘soon’ entering a new era, which then would stand under the sign of Aquarius?
That remembers me a refrain in ‘Hair’: “This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius”.
Science and many scientists believe they are the beginning and end of all things known! Omniscient! Not even close………but at least some are more honest with the evidence:
https://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE
Martin’s elastic string can form the basis of an intriguing orbital mechanics puzzle.
Connect pieces of martins’s sting from the equatorial surface of the Moon to the Sun and each major planet.
To three significant figures calculate how many times each string wraps around the Moon in one year.
The string from Earth to Moon would be easy.
The string would wrap around Moon zero times, since Moon is not rotating on its axis.
The string would wrap around Earth once for every 24 hour day = 365.25. And unwrap once for every Moon “day” = 365.25/27.5 = 13.28. For the final total = 365.25 – 13.28 = 352.
The Sun is easy too.
The lunar day is 29.6 days. The years is 365,’25 days. The string winds 365.25/29.6=12.3 times.
The Sun rotates in 24 days. This will wind 365.25/24=15.2 times. Add one wind for the/Earth/Moon system’s orbit and you get 16.2 winds.
The inner planets would give a similar result, plus or minus about 0.25 for variation in their positions.
Earth orbit would be an “unwind”.
15.2 -1 = 14.2
You’re right. I got that backwards.
Bindidon, is that your proof that there is no God or why you are no longer married?
Bindidon, Go Fish
I’m inclined to agree. The whole idea of religion is fishy.
Go Fish
1. Neither do I have a proof that there is no God (let alone the contrary) nor am I interested in telling anybody there is one or not.
2. I only want that people avoid trying to convince me there would be one, let alone that I would meed it..
PR stunt, manipulative hyperbole or actually overwhelmed by their experience? In any case what remains is the age old question: Is there a God and did He create the universe? For some on this board if that is reality their whole existence and life’s work is a huge waste of time and money.
https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/318/apollo-8-genesis-reading/?fbclid=IwAR1LRcOG-YD4c4AEssgB3QkaQWGfiENYfMlAbwooPIzbB9h7ChQWm4wPVkw
GF…”Is there a God and did He create the universe?”
The only information we have on that hypothesis comes from the beginning of the Old Testament. There is no explanation of who God is or what form God takes. Therefore no one knows anything about God. That does not mean there is no God.
Jesus is a more interesting question because he is known to have been on Earth about 2000 years ago. Even at that, very little is written about the man from a first hand perspective.
Much of what is written about Jesus came from Romans, and a group lead by Irenaeus, who focused largely on the New Testament Gospel of John. From his interpretation of John, he created a following referred to as catholic (universal). Later, in 325 AD, the Roman emperor Constantine enforced the views of Irenaeus, forming the Roman Catholic church.
Unfortunately, Constantine and the bishops with whom he created the Nicene Creed, the forerunner of the modern Bible, banned all other Christian dogma. So we have no alternative views about Jesus.
But wait, some of the original alternative Christian work was found buried in the Egyptian desert (Nag Hammadi), apparently hidden away by dissenters to the Constantine view. It tells a different story than what is told in the Constantine bible.
The plot thickens.
My own theory is that what Jesus taught resonated with qualities already in humans. I don’t see how else his teachings could have survived for 2000 years.
That raises the question, where did we get those qualities, and was Jesus aware of them beforehand? In other words, was he divine, as some claim? I am referring to phenomena like awareness, intelligence, insight, love and compassion, the qualities that make us essentially human. None of them can be taught, they are simply in us to be uncovered.
That’s essentially what is stated in a quote from Jesus in one of the alternative Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas was a disciple, Doubting Thomas, who was not highly regarded by Ireneaus, or even the author of John. He is discussed in the Gospel of John, not in a flattering manner.
But why are the qualities there? Evolution cannot explain them or why there are codes in our DNA that are essential for creating the proteins, without which the human race could not survive.
Seems to me there’s a little more to this than meets the eye.
I am awaiting the next installment.
Another chapter in Gordon’s book called things I make up to post on the internet.
bob d…”Another chapter in Gordon’s book called things I make up to post on the internet”.
Bob…if you’d get away with your intimate encounters with your sheep, you’d find what I talk about is all on the Internet. Look up the work of religious scholar Elaine Pagels on the Nag Hammadi find. She is an expert.
She has also lived a tragic life, having lost a child to a rare illness and her husband to an accident. She has more reason than most to give up on the notion of God yet she has turned it into an investigation of life. In other words, she is not coming from a base of faith and belief, she is willing to ask serious questions.
You should read Elaine Pagels. She is not your typical proselytizer, she presents her views in a scientific, rational manner without appealing to a mystical authority.
You, on the other hand, sound like a hopeless sheep-shagger who has no interest in possibilities. ☺
Gordon mooncalf,
I have a couple of Pagels books on my shelf.
This statement of yours is objectionable, you didn’t pay attention in confirmation or catechism class.
“Nicene Creed, the forerunner of the modern Bible, banned all other Christian dogma. So we have no alternative views about Jesus.”
The Nicene creed is much later than the bible, and didn’t ban all other Christian dogma, and the Nicene creed is hardly more than a paragraph.
Gordon Robertson, DREMT, JDHuffman
I’m having a problem working out how a Foucault pendulum would behave using your physics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
A Foucault pendulum at the Earth’s South Pole rotated 360 degrees once every 23 hours 56 minutes. This is Earth’s siderial day, the time it takes for Earth to rotate once relative to the fixed stars.
How long would a Foucault pendulum at the Moon’s South Pole take to complete one 360 degree rotation?
Would it take 27.3 days, the Moon’s rotation peroid relative to the fixed stars?
Would it take 29.5 days, the time from one full moon to the next?
Or would it not rotate at all.
E-man, what is confusing you is trying to fit your pseudoscience into reality. Moon is NOT rotating on its axis. It is only orbiting.
Doesn’t answer the question.
How would you expecta Foucault pendulum at the Moon’s South Pole to behave?
I would expect it to follow the Moon’s siderial period of 28.3 days, but I’m not sure what you would expect.
Does an orbiting Moon affect the pendulum in the same way as a rotating Moon?
Sorry, 27.3 days.
A real Foucault pendulum may not give perfect results, due to the fact that Moon is also moving relative to the Sun, and the speeds are so different.
So, let’s assuma a “perfect” pendulum, with no interference from Earth or Sun. In such a situation, the pendulum would indicate the orbital 360°, relative to Earth.
Can you give me a number?
“360” is not a number?
Not an angle, a time.
How many days would our Foucault pendulum at the Moon’s South Pole take to rotate 360 degrees?
The time for Moon to make a complete 360 ° orbit would closely correspond with the time between full moons, about 29.5 days.
Now that is something we could test. If I am correct the pendulum should rotate every 27.3 days. If you are correct it should rotate every 29.5 days.
When NASA or the Chinese set up their lunar South Pole station we can ask them to check.
We also have a third option. Gordon Robertson states that the pendulum would not rotate at all, ie that the universe rotates every 27.3 days. We can run gyroscopes to check for that.
Oh, it’s “Foucault Pendulum” time. I wondered when that would be dredged up again.
E-man, you don’t have to wait for a station on the moon. You could learn about orbital motion, and then work it out yourself.
Moon does not complete a full 360°, based on the stars, because the Earth continues in its orbit during that time. So, the Moon still needs to orbit about another 27° to catch up with earth. It’s basically the same as the period from full moon to full moon.
‘Oh, its ‘Foucault Pendulum’ time. I wondered when that would be dredged up again.’
More of those pesky Facts that dont really matter, and have to be IGNORED AGAIN.
Just like:
The lunar poles.
Librations.
Angular momentum.
Missing torque.
Moon-Earth not a Rigid Body.
entropic…”Im having a problem working out how a Foucault pendulum would behave using your physics”.
First of all, let’s make sure this pendulum does what it is claimed to do.
From wiki…”At either the North Pole or South Pole, the plane of oscillation of a pendulum remains fixed relative to the distant masses of the universe while Earth rotates underneath it, taking one sidereal day to complete a rotation. So, relative to Earth, the plane of oscillation of a pendulum at the North Pole viewed from above undergoes a full clockwise rotation during one day; a pendulum at the South Pole rotates counterclockwise”.
The Earth rotates underneath the pendulum? What is it hung on, a sky hook?
Presuming it is set up on some sort of very low friction bearing that allows it to remain independent of Earth’s rotation, I still don’t see how it works.
It presumably moves in a plane independent of the Earth’s rotation, so what is it supposed to show?
The pendulum is obviously affected by Earth’s gravity or it would not swing at all. Remember, the Moon’s gravity is 1/6th Earth gravity. Also, Earth offers air resistance and the Moon none.
To answer your question, if the pendulum does measure Earth’s rotation, it would measure nothing on a pole of the Moon.
Would Earth’s gravity affect it from afar? Would the Moon’s orbital factors affect it?
The South Pole pendulum was suspended within a building.
Let me be clear. You are saying that the plane of a Foucault pendulum suspended at the Moon’s South Pole would show no rotation reletive to the Moon’s surface.
entropic…”You are saying that the plane of a Foucault pendulum suspended at the Moons South Pole would show no rotation reletive to the Moons surface”.
If the pendulum is intended to measure the Moon’s rotation about it’s axis, that’s what I am saying.
The Moon cannot rotate about its axis because it is held in orbit with its near face always toward the Earth. That means its opposite face, and its axis, is moving in concentric circles about the Earth’s centre.
You alarmists seem to think the Moon has to rotate locally because it changes position wrt the background stars. However, it is changing position without rotating locally as can be seen by my concentric circle argument above.
Correct – I have tried many mental viewpoints of this ‘silly string theory’… from duplicating the Earth and it’s orbit about the sun (w/o a moon) as well as attaching this imaginary string to several bodies and it simply keeps coming down to obit wrapping vs axis …. personally I have a hard time thinking that when one puts a box/frame of reference around just the earth and moon – day by day…and year in year out the moon is not wrapped up in any way with this string…. then why would i then have to believe that once this frame of reference is removed that all the sudden the moon should magically start getting wrapped up with the same string that is attached to the Earth? It does not magically start spinning…but yes it can start getting wrapped up by orbital references
Martin…as I claimed before, if the Moon is not rotating about its axis in one reference frame it is not rotating about it in any reference frame.
Can you believe that this lowly layman (Go Fish) has the audacity to challenge many of the conclusions of many on this board?
It is incredulous to think that this untrained worthless peon of a mind should think he could possibly be the impetus of a revisit to dogmatic conclusions of the scientific community! What shall we do now?
Keep challenging and questioning, “layman”. “Institutionalized Pseudoscience” is falling apart, one false belief at a time.
Reality is a bitch, as they say….
GF,
“For Newton the world of science was by no means the whole of life. He spent more time on theology than on science; indeed, he wrote about 1.3 million words on biblical subjects.”
I see no contradiction.
“Nature, and Natures Laws, lay hid in Night.
God said, Let Newton be! and All was Light.”
Alexander Pope
Thomas Jefferson was a practical chap. He said –
“It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
A problem with fanatical GHE true believers may be that they want to pick my pocket to further their religion, and metaphorically threaten to break my leg if I dissent from their views.
I’m reasonably sure I cannot bend the universe to my will using the power of furious thought. I’m content for that to be the case. Others, of course, might not. I wish them well, but sincerely hope that they will leave me alone.
Cheers.
mickey…”Worse than the 3 stooges in my opinion. (I exclude ren since he obviously has some disability).”
A new low in sleezy comments. Ren is a good contributor to this blog with the information he supplies. He is Polish and likely does not speak English yet he tries to contribute.
Mickey (Mouse) who contributes dick all of intelligence to this blog writes ren off as having a disability. Absolute sleeze.
Should we feel sorry for ren? No way! Denialist rubbish deserves to be hammered whoever spouts it. Let him post on a Polish site if he has trouble with the King’s English.
Your disability is being Canadian and yet you still try to contribute.
Begone, troll!
+1
mickey mouse…”Denialist rubbish deserves to be hammered whoever spouts it.”
All ren ever posts is meteorological information, ENSO status, and other contributions related to science. I have never heard him deny anything, nor has any other skeptic on this blog.
No skeptic here denies there has been warming since 1850 and we all agree that climates can change. We just don’t think a trace gas can cause any degree of warming or climate change.
I personally don’t think any significant climate change has occurred from the 1C or so warming since 1850.
You are nothing more than a hallucinating galoot.
“I personally dont think..”
Yes, I agree with you there.
Ian, please stop trolling.
+1
I’m glad you agree that you should stop trolling, Ian.
Moons rotation – my take on the topic. (Remember, my speciality is psychology, not physics)
The Earth is rotating.
Everything on the surface is rotating.
A helicopter on its landing pad is therefore rotating.
It begins to lift off.
One inch off the ground – it must still be rotating.
One foot off the ground – it must still be rotating.
Ten thousand feet off the ground – it must still be rotating.
At an altitude equal to the moon’s distance from the surface – it must still be rotating (assume it can still propel itself that far).
(If not, when does the helicopter cease to be rotating?)
Both the helicopter and the moon are now in similar orbits. The helicopter is fixed high above its landing pad and but its neighbour the moon is travelling relatively faster or slower. The helicopter is still rotating since nothing has changed. Because there is no effective difference in their situations, the moon, also looking down at the Earth, must be rotating also.
–professor P says:
July 27, 2019 at 10:33 PM
Moons rotation – my take on the topic. (Remember, my speciality is psychology, not physics)
The Earth is rotating.
Everything on the surface is rotating.
A helicopter on its landing pad is therefore rotating.
It begins to lift off.
One inch off the ground – it must still be rotating.
One foot off the ground – it must still be rotating.
Ten thousand feet off the ground – it must still be rotating.
At an altitude equal to the moon’s distance from the surface – it must still be rotating (assume it can still propel itself that far).
(If not, when does the helicopter cease to be rotating?)–
Well, rockets generally don’t continue to go straight up.
They start off going straight up get out of atmosphere as quickly as possible. Then say if go due east, they end up in orbit with the inclination of the latitude. So, say Launch from 28 degree latitude, then end up in a orbit of 28 degree inclination.
And the rotational speed of Earth is added to the orbital velocity. Or if go west instead of east, the rotational speed is subtracted from the orbital velocity.
If leave from equator, you get the max rotational speed which about 1000 mph, and from 28 degree latitude it’s a bit less.
If at equator one can launch to a 28 degree inclination, then you gain same amount rotational speed as you do if launched from 28 latitude. If at 28 degree latitude you can NOT launch at lower than 28 degree inclination orbit.
But if at equator or 28 degree latitude, you launch to 90 degree inclination and you would NOT gain or loss orbital velocity from Earth’s rotation.
Of course instead of orbital insertion, you can do an escape velocity trajectory, but one would generally go east to gain the earth’s rotational velocity- it would add velocity of the delta-v of your rocket power. Or other wasting rocket power there seems to no reason to go west. But if at North or South pole, you don’t have any rotational velocity to gain or lose- so east or west would not make any difference.
If going in orbital or escape trajectory and you are not immediately gaining velocity [a cannon would gain velocity immediately] you will have gravity loss. And rocket doing escape velocity would tend to have more gravity loss.
So, when you say:
“At an altitude equal to the moon’s distance from the surface – it must still be rotating (assume it can still propel itself that far).”
I thinking didn’t get any rotational speed added to trajectory and HUGE, HUGE amount of gravity loss. But yes I guess one still has the rotational velocity of earth.
What really talking about is space elevator- that only known
“practical way to do this”. Or a space elevator doesn’t have gravity loss due to the strength of cable. But anything traveling up space elevator cable does have gravity loss. Or gravity loss is the force you overcoming when climbing up a rope.
Or easier [uses less energy] going fast up a rope.
pP,
You say your specialty is psychology, which is more related to astrology or phrenology, than physics, of course.
You wrote –
“The Earth is rotating.” – about its axis of rotation, of course.
And then –
“Everything on the surface is rotating.” – also about the Earth’s axis of rotation, and about the Sun’s axis of rotation etc. not about its own, of course, which is what you may be trying to imply in a psychobabbling misleading fashion.
The rest of your nonsensical comment is just more oral sleight of hand, illusory deception of the pseudoscientific GHE true believer style. In civilised countries, governments recognise the amateurish nature of psychology, and prevent its practitioners from even prescribing drugs.
Carry on babbling. Psychologists are permitted, even encouraged to do so. It keeps them happy, and does not harm anyone silly enough to use their services.
Cheers.
pp…”The Earth is rotating”.
The original problem as stated was that the Moon does not rotate on it’s axis. The rotation to which you refer is a rotation about the Earth’s own axis.
You are describing a rigid body, the Moon, rotating about an external axis, the Earth’s centre. That’s an orbit. You could call it a revolution as well, as in the Moon revolves around the Earth.
The helicopter is rotating because it’s attached to the Earth, which is rotating. The atmosphere rotates with the Earth, thank goodness. If it did not, and the Earth rotated under it, we humans would face winds up to 1000 mph at the Equator.
Even in the air, a hovering helicopter is attached to the Earth by gravity. The helicopter can power itself forward which is not an orbit like the Moon’s orbit.
The Moon’s orbit is a different story. The Moon has linear momentum and it wants to move in a straight line. Earth’s gravity acts on the near face of the Moon uniformly and tries to accelerate the Moon toward Earth. Meantime, the Moon’s momentum tries to move it in a straight line. The resultant between the Moon’s momentum and Earth’s gravity produces a resultant path which is the orbit.
The Moon’s orbit is actually a series of instantaneous tangential (linear) paths.
As JD and I agreed, in orbit, the Moon now has an angular momentum about the Earth.
Since the same face is always toward the Earth, all parts of the near face are moving in a circular orbit. We know it’s slightly elliptical but making it circular helps with the description. Meantime, all parts of the far face are moving in a larger concentric circle to the near face.
All parts in between those extremes, including the axis, are moving in concentric circles parallel to each other. Since all parts of the Moon are moving in concentric circles, they cannot cross over the paths of any other particle to perform local rotation.
You do realise the full implications of your statement that a Foucault pendulum does not rotate on the Moon.
The plane of a pendulum, like a gyroscope, remains stationary relative to the inertial reference frame. You are saying that the surface of the Moon defines the inertial reference frame and that the rest of the universe is rotating every 27.3 days.
If this were so, every gyroscope in the world would rotate. The inertial navigation system in every nuclear submarine would detect that rotation. They already correct for precession due to the Earth’s rotation and would also have to correct for the rotation of the universe.
Since gyroscopes do not detect rotation of the universe, this tells us that the Moon is rotating.
“We live in a galaxy that is called the Milky Way.
…
More mind-blowing is that this mass of stars, gas, planets and other objects are all spinning. Just like a pinwheel. It’s spinning at 270 kilometers per second (168 miles per second) and takes about 200 million years to complete one rotation…”
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-milky-rotate.html
168 times 3600 is 604,800 mph
Pretty mind boggling speeds – almost makes one’s head spin (but not on it’s axis when compared to one’s body 😉 )
“…this tells us that the Moon is rotating.”
…but not on its own axis.
DREMT
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File%3ALunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
Which axis. There are two. If the Moon is not rotating relative to the Earth/Moon axis, then the axis is perpendicular to the plane of its orbit and there would be no North/South libration.
Relative to the fixed stars and the inertial reference frame the Moon’s axis is 6.7 degrees inclined to the plane of its orbit. If this were the correct axis, we would see a North/South libration.
Since we observe a North/South libration the Moon is rotating around its axis relative to the rest of the universe and not around the perpendicular axis your opinion requires.
E-man, you continue to find ways to confuse yourself.
Moon’s libration is due to its orbital motion. The Moon is NOT rotating on its axis. You continue to be confused by “relative to the stars”. If you were sincerely trying to understand, you would throw out “relative to the stars”. That is a trick used in pseudoscience. A racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis, but clowns find some “frame of reference” where the horse appears to be rotating, and then they use it to try to pervert reality.
Are you seeking truth, or seeking to pervert reality?
E Man, people keep making this same stupid argument. It’s actually pretty simple.
From observations of the moon over time, astronomers determined what is the “top bit” and what is the “bottom bit” of the moon relative to how it moves in its orbit and variations in the way it presents its face towards the Earth. You can draw an imaginary line from the “top bit” to the “bottom bit” and call it an axis, but it doesn’t mean the moon is rotating about that axis.
The moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, which is more of a pivot point than an axis. There’s no “requirement” for their to be this “axis” there that is perpendicular to the moon’s orbital plane. Nobody is claiming the moon’s orbital motion is simple and straightforward, since there are all sorts of different gravitational interactions going on in the solar system generally.
I read here above – without any surprise:
“The moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, which is more of a pivot point than an axis.”
How can a point in space be an axis?
*
For the high-end specialists in astrophysics posting here endlessly about the Moon rotating about Earth’s and Moon’s barycentre, I think it might be worthwile for them to consider that this barycentre is about 4660 km away from Earth’s centre, and therefore… inside Earth.
The same holds of course when you consider Earth orbiting the Sun. Their barycentre hardly could be outside of the star.
I mean that for smaller celestial bodies orbiting much bigger ones, the difference, for the smaller bodies, between “orbiting about the bigger one’s center” and “orbiting around their common barycentre” is simply a negligible detail that detracts from the central discussion.
‘Nobody is claiming the moon’s orbital motion is simple and straightforward,’
Actually Newton did.
It is simple enough to explain in terms of a Moon rotating about its tilted axis and an elliptical orbit.
In the non-spinner scenario it becomes ‘too complex’ to explain, and thus is NOT explained.
How lame!
‘You can draw an imaginary line from the top to the bottom and call it an axis’
Yep, but that turns out not to be where the Poles are. they are tilted 6.7 degrees from this imaginary line.
The Poles are not imaginary.
Another point to be chalked up to ‘too complex’ to explain in the Non-spinner scenario.
So again, it will just be left unexplained and IGNORED.
If there’s a point you need missing, Bindidon’s your man.
Are you confusing the East/West libration due to orbital eccentricity and the North/South librationbecause the Moon’s axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the plane of its orbit?
I’m going to write that out again, because the quotation marks messed up, and I think I could make it even clearer.
E Man, people keep making this same stupid argument. It’s actually pretty simple.
From observations of the moon over time, astronomers determined where is the “North Pole” and the “South Pole” of the moon relative to how it moves in its orbit and variations in the way it presents its face towards the Earth. You can draw an imaginary line from the “North Pole” to the “South Pole” and call it an axis, but it doesn’t mean the moon is rotating about that axis.
The moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, which is more of a pivot point than an axis. There’s no “requirement” for their to be this “axis” there that is perpendicular to the moon’s orbital plane. Nobody is claiming the moon’s orbital motion is simple and straightforward, since there are all sorts of different gravitational interactions going on in the solar system generally.
“Are you confusing the East/West libration due to orbital eccentricity and the North/South librationbecause the Moon’s axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the plane of its orbit?”
No. I’m explaining that just because you can determine where the moon’s “poles” are from the way it moves in orbit and the libration of latitude, and connect an imaginary line between the two, it does not prove rotation about that “axis”.
‘From observations of the moon over time, astronomers determined where is the ‘North Pole’ and the ‘South Pole’ of the moon relative to how it moves in its orbit and variations in the way it presents its face towards the Earth.’
Yep. ‘how it moves’ is what they figured out. It moves in orbit. And it rotates around a tilted axis.
“You can draw an imaginary line from the ‘North Pole’ to the ‘South Pole’ and call it an axis”
Yes, and they know where it is based on ‘how it moves’.
“but it doesnt mean the moon is rotating about that axis.”
The Poles are found based on ‘how it moves’ around them.
Now you are DECLARING it doesnt mean is actually moving that way!
Huh???
Then how can we DEFINE poles without an axis of rotation through them???
A racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis, but clowns find some “frame of reference” where the horse appears to be rotating, and then they use it to try to pervert reality.
Manual pingback:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-724256
Gordon mumbles:
“Since the same face is always toward the Earth, all parts of the near face are moving in a circular orbit. We know its slightly elliptical but making it circular helps with the description. Meantime, all parts of the far face are moving in a larger concentric circle to the near face.”
Gordon shockingly discovers an object does not rotate wrt a reference frame rotating at the same angular velocity as the object itself.
Gordon squeals:
“Since the same face is always toward the Earth, all parts of the near face are moving in a circular orbit. We know its slightly elliptical but making it circular helps with the description. Meantime, all parts of the far face are moving in a larger concentric circle to the near face!.”
Gordon unwittingly indirectly proves the moon does indeed rotate on its own axis. Since, per Gordon, the far side of the moon is moving along a concentric circular orbit with a greater radius than the near side, the velocity of the far side is greater than the near side. We know that with curvilinear translation, all points on an object move at the same velocity, therefor the moon is not translating. An object not translating will be rotating on its own axis.
Yes, HGS, we get it. You think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the motion on the right:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Sorry guys, My explanation still seems more plausible than your tortured attempts.
Your admission that physics is not your specialty is what is most plausible.
Browsing back through the comments I see three views.
1) The Moon rotates on its axis.
2) The Moon rotates around a centre.
3) The Moon does not rotate.
It all depend on your frame of reference.
Then you see what you want to see. The argument has always been between those that think the moon rotates on its own axis and those that don’t.
And it’s been explained numerous times now that frames of reference do not settle the issue.
Have you mentioned this to Gordon Robertson? He is convinced that the Moon does not rotate at all, neither on its axis or around a centre.
Nobody is arguing that the moon doesn’t orbit! What do you think he’s arguing, that the moon moves in a straight line!?
“When your side is losing, it’s best to go for a tie.”
Nice try, E-man. But this ploy has been attempted before.
The REALITY is that the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Everything else is just an attempt to pervert that reality.
Does it rotate around a centre?
ibid.
entropic…”Browsing back through the comments I see three views.
1) The Moon rotates on its axis.
2) The Moon rotates around a centre.
3) The Moon does not rotate.
It all depend on your frame of reference”.
Seems to me you’re moving the goal posts, perhaps in an attempt to save face.
You’d have to go right back to the beginning of this debate where it was claimed that the Moon does not rotate about its axis.
This has nothing to do with reference frames, if the Moon does not have a local angular momentum about its own axis, it will have no local angular momentum in any reference frame.
BTW…I have said nothing about the Moon not rotating about the Earth. The motion is not normally referred to as a rotation, it’s called an orbit or a revolution.
Your argument is a red-herring. I think you now get it that the Moon does not rotate about a local axis and you are trying to save face by broadening the original claim.
‘This has nothing to do with reference frames, if the Moon does not have a local angular momentum about its own axis’
Gordon,
The Moon DOES have angular momentum about its own axis.
We can go through the calculation (if you like) of angular momentum for a sphere on a string, vs a point-like object with the same mass on a string, and the sphere will be larger.
It will be larger by exactly the amount that a stationary sphere spinning on its own axis has.
Why?
Well, points on the Moons equator have different velocities for Outer or Inner points, as your concentric circles show.
“Equatorial rotation velocity
4.627 m/s” wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
RELATIVE to the center of the MOON, OUTER points on the equator will be moving 4.627 m/s, ie faster, and the INNER points will be moving -4.627 m/s, ie slower.
This motion relative to center gives the Moon angular momentum.
I’m laughing more and more about these self-proclaimed astrophysicists who claim that Newton is right, but contradict him everywhere.
As a reminder: Principia, Propositio XVII, Theorema XV.
– The Sun revolves around its own axis with respect to the fixed stars;
– The Earth revolves around its own axis with respect to the fixed stars;
– The Moon revolves around its own axis with respect to the fixed stars.
All texts in this thread, in both Latin and English.
You can’t change it, neither with racehorse toys, nor with concentric circles.
All you need is to understand that for Newton, the Moon is no special case of anything. Like Earth orbits the Sun and rotates around its own axis, the Moon orbits Earth and rotates around its own axis.
*
What I find extremely painful is that some absolutely meaningless, retired little engineers and teachers allow themselves to claim that the Moon does not rotate because it always shows us the same side, although well-known observers – sometimes all their lives – watched the moon, and all have come to the opposite conclusion.
How arrogant is one allowed to be in life?
*
But this blog’s trolliest and most insulting commenter – I mean here Flynn – has shown us all, how far obscurantism has progressed in this blog, when he wrote in unbelievable insolence:
“Newtons assumption may have been wrong. How would you show it was correct?”
And that without presenting any scientifically valuable proof!
To be seen here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364974
This is an insult to Science. Disgusting.
binny…” The Moon revolves around its own axis with respect to the fixed stars”.
I hardly think that Latin would translate exactly as you have interpreted it. I think you have embellished the translation to support your weak argument.
I can see Newton claiming that the Moon rotates wrt to the stars but not about its ‘own’ axis.
Furthermore, I don’t see why you cannot analyze this for yourself to see the error in your argument. Present it in your own words.
Robertson
“I can see Newton claiming that the Moon rotates wrt to the stars but not about its own axis.”
Your problem (or better: that of the people permanently having to repeat everything to you all the time) is that you are unable to remember anything what was written to you one or two days ago.You only live in ‘today’.
*
Thus, for the umpteenth time, I paste Newton’s text IN LATIN again:
Principia Mathematica Liber Tertius
PROPOSITIO XVII. THEOREMA XV.
Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, & librationem lunae ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.
Patet per motus legem 1. & Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Lib. I. Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, mars horis 24. 39′, venus horis 23 circiter, terra horis 23. 56′, sol diebus 25 & luna diebus 27. 7 hor. 43′.
Haec ita se habere ex phaenomenis manifestum est.
Maculae in corpore solis ad eundem situm in disco solis redeunt diebus 27 circiter, respectu terrae ; ideoque respectu fixarum sol revolvitur diebus 25 circiter.
Quoniam vero lunae circa axem SUUM uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est: huius facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis eius semper respiciet quamproxime & propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviab it hinc inde a terra.
Haec est libratio lunae in longitudinem: Nam libratio in latitudinem orta est ex latitudine lunae & inclinatione axis eius ad planum eclipticae.
Hanc librationis lunaris theoriam D. N. Mercator in astronomia sua initio anni 1676 edita, ex literis meis plenius expofuit. Simili motu extimus saturni satelles circa axem suum revolvi videtur, eadem sui facie saturnum perpetuo respiciens.
Nam circum saturnum revolvendo, quoties ad orbis sui partem orientalem accedit, aegerrime videtur, & plerumque videri cessat: id quod evenire potest per maculas quasdam in ea corporis parte quae terrae tunc obvertitur, ut Cassinus notavit.
Simili etiam motu satelles extimus jovialis circa axem suum revolvi videtur, propterea quod in parte corporis jovi aversa maculam habeat quae tanquam in corpore jovis cernitur ubicunque satelles inter jovem & oculos nostros transit.
*
Did you now see “circa axem SUUM uniformiter revolventis “, Robertson?
Did you now understand why Newton thinks ‘respectu fixarum‘, Robertson, and not, for example, ‘respectu terrae’? For the planets, for the Moon, for the Sun? All the same referencing model wrt the fixed stars.
*
The remaining problem with people like you is that even if you understand all the stuff, you won’t accept it.
Because all you read and write is centred around your little ego.
That will stay an eternal difference between giant people like Newton and small people like you.
This, Robertson, does not disturb me so much. Who the heck are you, after all, compared with Newton, Lagrange, Laplace, Fourier?
binny…”retired little engineers and teachers allow themselves to claim that the Moon does not rotate because it always shows us the same side….”
Go into it. If the near side is always facing the Earth, it means the near side is moving in an orbit. That means the far side MUST BE moving in an orbit as well, outside the near face orbit. The axis must be moving in an intermediate concentric axis between the two.
The meaning is obvious. If the axis and the near side are moving in concentric orbits, they can never cross, as required by local rotation.
It’s always difficult to tell whether clowns are incompetent or dishonest.
Above, Bind claims to quote Newton “The Moon revolves around its own axis with respect to the fixed stars.”
Note the end of the sentence–“…with respect to the fixed stars.”
A few sentences later, Bind says “…the Moon orbits Earth and rotates around its own axis.”
Note this time, Bind omitted the “…with respect to the fixed stars.”
Is Bind so incompetent that he can’t realize his own omission, or is he trying to fool other fools?
In either case, a clown would not be able to be “an insult to science”. They’re just too funny.
Huffman
1. All planets and the Moon
“Patet per motus legem 1. & Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Lib. I. Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, mars horis 24. 39′, venus horis 23 circiter, terra horis 23. 56′, sol diebus 25 & LUNA diebus 27. 7 hor. 43′.”
*
2. The Sun
Maculae in corpore solis ad eundem situm in disco solis redeunt diebus 27 circiter, respectu terrae ; ideoque respectu fixarum SOL revolvitur diebus 25 circiter.
Look upthread at the English translations, Huffman.
Glad to help, as ge*r*an always wrote…
Sorry Bind, I already unraveled that trick.
You need some new deceptions.
binny…from Mike…Newtons assumption may have been wrong. How would you show it was correct?
Many today are claiming Newton is wrong about time being absolute. Therefore, either Newton is wrong or Einstein is wrong. I realize your Teutonic brain cannot comprehend the apparent dichotomy presented therein.
Newton wrong? Einstein wrong? Vas ist das?
I think its absolutely amazing what Newton managed to accomplish. There’s no reason to overload his discoveries by requiring he be absolutely correct with each observation.
Besides, I don’t think he made a mistake regarding the Moon, I think you have misinterpreted him or read far too much into what he claimed.
In the study of hieroglyphics and some biblical scripts, some modern scholars are still arguing over the meaning of one word. Religious tracts, like some New testament gospels, were often in Greek. Latin has similar issues where one word can have very different meanings, as in English.
Without the original context, known only to the writer, it is often impossible for modern translators to get the original meaning.
That issue is compounded when it is considered that Newton wrote in Old English.
Robertson
“That issue is compounded when it is considered that Newton wrote in Old English.”
Wow.
I see how competent you are.
All scientific texts were written in Latin at that time, Robertson.
The old English you refer to never and never was written by Newton.
It is one of the many translations, the very first one coming from Andrew Motte.
Oh I forgot a detail:
“Without the original context, known only to the writer, it is often impossible for modern translators to get the original meaning.”
Nice try, but a bit too dumb.
Andrew Motte (1696–1734) was a contemporary of Sir Isaac.
Understood, you genius?
binny…”The old English you refer to never and never was written by Newton”.
Have you noticed in one post you made that Newton used a written ‘f’ to represent an ‘s’. The old English ‘s’ looks like an integral sign.
Don’t tell me Newton did not write in old English. He wrote his Latin using Old English characters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s
https://www.onlinewritingjobs.com/fun-stuff/medial-s-the-old-english-s-that-looks-like-f/
My point is that even when he wrote in Latin, his base language was Old English. It’s pretty tough for anyone to immerse himself so deeply into a language that he writes totally in that language.
There would be no equivalent Latin for much of what he discovered, therefore he’d have to think out his science in Old English and translate it as closely as he could into Latin.
Given that, and the difference between Old English and present day English, I think there’s plenty of room for misinterpretation.
BTW…I think Newton was a much better, more rounded physicist than Einstein. I think Newton was right about time being absolute even though he did not seem to have worked out at that point that time has no physical existence.
Einstein was a theoretical physicist who lived in a world of thought-experiments. IMHO, the latter was his undoing in general relativity theory. He presumed far too much without the physical basis to back him up, which was contrary to what he preached.
Many scientists have criticized him for that, especially Louis Essen, who discovered the atomic clock. Essen thought Einstein lacked an understanding of measurement.
Robertson
Now you become really stubborn and ignorant, as usual.
https://tinyurl.com/yytuurr9
This is, wether you like it or not, Newton’s original text, written of course in LATIN, Robertson.
If Newton had written the stuff in Old English: why then did Andrew Motte translate it from Latin in Old English?
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846)
How is it possible to stay so ignorant?
Robertson
As you are very probably unable to find such things by your own, here is the book containing the original translation from Latin into Old English by Andrew Motte:
https://books.google.de/books?id=fhwAAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false
binny…why have you not responded to what I claimed about inner and out orbits? Do you feel an appeal to authority is sufficient?
The entire lunar orbit has a width equal to the diameter of the Moon. The inner edge of that diameter is always pointed to the Earth therefore the out edge is permanently pointed to space wrt to Earth.
There is no disputing that fact, if the near face is always pointed in the far face must be pointed out.
All points in between, including the axis, must be on concentric circles between the near face and the outer, dark face. Think of them as sub-orbits.
Explain how those points cross over the interceding, concentric sub-orbits in order to perform local rotation.
It is simply not possible if the same face is always pointed at the Earth.
B,
As I wrote previously –
“Newtons assumption may have been wrong. How would you show it was correct?
You still seem to be disinclined to answer, and I don’t blame you. Are you so fanatically insistent about Sir Issac’s belief in the corpuscular theory of light? Or about Sir Isaac’s pronouncements on religion or alchemy?
There is no positive “proof” in science. As Einstein said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
I merely asked how you would show (demonstrate, if you prefer) that the Moon rotates about its axis? You can’t, of course, so you claim ” . . . well known observers . . . watched the moon, and all have come to the opposite conclusion.”
Others may decide for themselves who is ignoring the scientific method, in favour of unsubstantiated assertions.
Cheers.
“This is an insult to Science. Disgusting.”
Welcome to the world of the climate change denialist.
mickey…”Welcome to the world of the climate change denialist”.
What is climate change denial? Are you now claiming there is a global climate that coincides with global warming?
Everyone knows that local climates can change but certainly not due to a trace gas in the atmosphere.
BTW…I am not aware of any local climate that has changed significantly in my lifetime.
“Climate change denialist”…. LOL too funny – most folks here are actually honest and open about climate change… it changes.. most educated folk know this. What folks also know is that long term climate change is also natural….. Sea levels have been much higher than they have now … Temps have been much higher than they have now … and CO2 has been much higher than they have now as well… all without the magical help of humans.- Now this all does not diminish the fact that humans are indeed adding to pollutants… but most of us can see through the political hypocrisy about the use of this. It does not take much effort to just look at all the folks like Avin Gore and the feigned emotional fear mongering to understand that the show is not worth the price of admission.
DM,
You wrote –
“Welcome to the world of the climate change denialist.”
If you could actually explain what you mean, I might thank you for your support. Can you actually name a single person of sound mind who denies that climate is the average of weather?
Weather changes (fairly obviously). Climate therefore changes. This does not appear obvious to pseudoscientific GHE true believers, who are stupid enough to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Are you one of the stupid and ignorant fanatics who believes that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter? No?Then I am glad you agree with me that climate changes as a result of weather averages changing.
Keep on with the indefinable “denialist” rhetoric. You aren’t even capable of explaining what it is you seem to be complaining about. How stupid does that seem to rational people, do you think?
Cheers.
nate…”From observations of the moon over time, astronomers determined where is the North Pole and the South Pole of the moon relative to how it moves in its orbit and variations in the way it presents its face towards the Earth.
nate….Yep. how it moves is what they figured out. It moves in orbit. And it rotates around a tilted axis”.
*******
The quote you provide says nothing about the Moon rotating around a tilted axis. They are trying to ascertain where the axis might be compared to the Moon’s orbital plane.
Earth’s N-S Poles are determined by the Earth’s rotation axis, which is obvious, and the angle of that axis to the orbital plane. They are obviously studying the Moon’s orbital plane and determining an axis based on that.
If the Moon turned about its axis, it would be a no-brainer. It doesn’t, therefore they need to use its position related to its orbital plane.
The variations in which the Moon presents itself is called libration, a very slight apparent turning motion.
Robertson
“The variations in which the Moon presents itself is called libration, a very slight apparent turning motion.”
Don’t try to reinvent the world all the time, Robertson.
Read Newton instead.
Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, & librationem lunae ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.
Moon’s libration arises from its daily motion. (Search for Motte’s translation.)
binny…”Moons libration arises from its daily motion”.
Exactly what I have been trying to say. Libration is a property of the Moon’s orbit. It’s about view angle. At certain parts of its orbit, in the more eccentric parts of it’s orbit, it is possible to peek slightly behind the edge of the Moon.
The daily motion reference in your quote does not refer to axial rotation of the Moon it refers to daily motion in its orbit.
Robertson
Jesus why are you STUBBORN again!
Never and never did Newton write the longituddinal libration would be a ‘property of Moon’s orbit!
He wrote it being a property of its rotation: librationem lunae ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.
Motus diurnus = daily motion, i.e. rotation.
B,
You wrote –
“Motus diurnus = daily motion, i.e. rotation.” Nope, another pseudoscientific GHE true believer redefinition.
Daily motion, or daily movements (take your pick) does not mean rotation about its axis. There are adequate Latin words for rotation, which Newton has not used in this instance – no doubt for good reason.
Your language is not clear. For example, a motor car may travel around a circular track. You may claim it is rotating about its axis, rather than being subject to curvilinear translation, on the basis that the offside of the vehicle would be traversing a greater distance than the nearside.
You would be wrong. The motorcar is fitted with a differential because of this very fact. The offside wheels go further than the nearside wheels when travelling along a curve. Just as the Moon, the vehicle is not rotating around its axis. If the car was attached rigidly to the centre of the track, then the car is still being translated around a curve, rather than rotating about its own axis.
Keep appealing to authority. The facts don’t change.
Cheers.
MF snorts:
“If the car was attached rigidly to the centre of the track, then the car is still being translated around a curve, rather than rotating about its own axis.”
Wrong! A translating object does not change orientation and all points on the object have the same velocity. Not happening with the car. What is with these moon non-rotators and their clown physics? Completely backwards.
binny…”Never and never did Newton write the longituddinal libration would be a property of Moons orbit!”
I don’t need Newton for that, it is entirely obvious. As Tim once pointed out, in the extremes of an eccentric orbit, the pull of gravity on the Moon is not fully radial. There is a slight sine or cosine element to it which allows the Moon to expose a tiny bit around its edges.
Whether you see it or not depends on your view angle from Earth. If the Moon’s orbit was totally circular there would be no longitudinal libration.
What the heck do you think causes libration?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
“Libration in longitude results from the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit around Earth; the Moon’s rotation sometimes leads and sometimes lags its orbital position. The lunar libration in longitude was discovered by Johannes Hevelius in 1648”.
stupid…”A translating object does not change orientation and all points on the object have the same velocity…”
According to your delusion.
The definition claims all parts on the object must be moving parallel to their motion at the start. That is always the case on a circular track since at each instant the motion of the vehicle is on a tangent to the circle and all it’s particles are moving parallel to each other at all times.
Except maybe for the front wheels. If you make the car a railway car on a track, that gets around the front wheel problem.
If a vehicle starts on a track at 3 o’clock on a circle, the motion of all parts on the vehicle will always be moving parallel to each other.
As for the velocity. a radial line from the centre of the circle through the car will measure the velocity of the car in radians per second. All points on the rigid body will circumnavigate the track in the same time.
In other words, if a Nascar car runs the track in 1 minute, it means the front end of the car breaks the finish line at 1 minute. They don’t compute the velocity of each particle on the car and average them.
Same with the Earth. Different points along a longitudinal line will have different velocities. However, the angular velocity of the Earth is based on the time it takes one complete longitudinal line to complete one revolution.
Beats me why you can’t understand something so simple.
Mike Flynn…”The offside wheels go further than the nearside wheels when travelling along a curve”.
Agreed. However, the entire vehicle determines the speed around the track since the speedometer drive is in the transmission and the speedo gear ratio is geared to the number of revolutions of the driven wheel over a distance.
FYI…how to calibrate your speedo. ☺
https://itstillruns.com/recalibrate-after-tire-size-increase-7902206.html
According to stupid, it seems you have to calculate the speed of each particle in the car on a track and average the speed.
It appears Gordon and MF both attended the same fake university.
Once again, from Brown UUniversity, School of Engineering, Kinematic course notes:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.”
But Gordon makes up his OWN fake definition:
“at each instant the motion of the vehicle is on a tangent to the circle and all it’s particles are moving parallel to each other at all times.”
That is NOT the same thing as “every line in the body remains parallel to its original position, Einstein. Are you really this dense?
If the object starts out facing east, the object must ALWAYS face east to meet the requirement for translation. It cannot move in the direction of the tangent to the circle. That would not be translation. That would not be “remaining parallel to its original position.
Secondly, you keep lying constantly about the velocity requirement for curvilinear translation. The VELOCITIES for every point must be the same. Not the angular velocities.
You brazenly lie and distort the truth with your statement:
“As for the velocity. a radial line from the centre of the circle through the car will measure the velocity of the car in radians per second.”
Velocities are NOT measured in radians per second. Angular velocies are. The condition for curvilinear translation is that all point of the car must have the same velocity, not angular velocity.
And you have the audacity to proclaim, “Beats me why you can’t understand something so simple.”
Do you really think you are fooling anybody? Sometimes I think you are just putting on an act. I mean can anyone really be this stupid? Apparently so.
Gordon squeals:
“According to stupid, it seems you have to calculate the speed of each particle in the car on a track and average the speed.”
Poor Gordon confuses velocity with angular velocity. Poor Gordon STILL cannot figure out curvilinear translation. He could not figure out how an object could move along a curve and not change its orientation (the essential requirement for curvilinear translation)
No Gordon, you calculate the velocities of at least two points on the object to determine if an object is meeting the requirement for curvlinear translation. You STILL don’t get it.
HGS,
You wrote –
“A translating object does not change orientation and all points on the object have the same velocity.”
Well, no. If you seek out examples of curvilinear motion, objects such projectiles, roller coasters, trains etc are commonly depicted. Orientation changes galore!
One example of a class problem –
“Problem 2
A car driver enters a curve at 72 km/h, and slows down, making the speed decrease at a constant rate of 4.5 km/h each second.” The accompanying diagram shows a vehicle whose heading is constantly changing, of course.
Your quoted definition seems at odds with generally accepted usage. How would you describe the motion of an arrow from a bow fired at 45 degrees? The arrow’s axis more or less follows a parabola, but goes from pointing upward to pointing downward when it lands. This seems to me to be curvilinear motion.
Maybe you could provide some examples of objects undergoing curvilinear motion which do not change their orientation with respect to, say, the fixed stars. A gyroscope would be one, but this is the exception, rather than the rule which you seem to imply.
But hey, pseudoscientific GHE true believers just make up definitions on the spot, to suit their current purposes. Go for it.
Cheers.
MF confuses curvilinear motion with curvilinear translation. Not the same thing. Gordon has the same confusion. One can have curvilinear motion that is not translational. The definition I quoted is a common kinematic definition you will find in many kinematic reference sources. I’ve provided many.
An example of curvilinear translation would be the seat of a ferris wheel. The seat moves around in a circular orbit, but its orientation does not change. Assuming the chair start its movement at the 6:00 o’clock position, a line drawn through the seat will remain parallel to that position throughout the motion. The velocity of any two points on the chair will be identical, plus all points move on congruent curves. These are all conditions for curvilinear tranlation.
Another example would be a gondola for a ski lift. The cable that it rides on is curved since the cable sags, yet the gondola’s orientation remains unchanged since it remains upright throughout its curvilinear path.
HGS,
Unfortunately, you will have a hard time convincing anybody that your curvilinear translation definition applies to the Moon. You will note that one face of the Moon points inward towards the Earth at all times.
Keep dodging and weaving all you like. The base of your example seat on the Ferris wheel points toward the centre of the wheel only once in its orbit around the centre. Nothing like the Moon at all, which remains aligned such that the same face remains pointed at the Earth at all times.
Press on debating. Quite pointless, as physical facts are not changed by wishful thinking.
Cheers.
MF moans:
“Unfortunately, you will have a hard time convincing anybody that your curvilinear translation definition applies to the Moon. You will note that one face of the Moon points inward towards the Earth at all times.’
Why is it that the moon non-rotators have reading comprehension issues? I never said the curvilinear translation defintion applies to the moon. It’s Gordon who says the moon exhibits curvilinear translation. Argue with him. His understanding of kinematics is atrocious, but that is common with you folk.
Mike squeals:
“The base of your example seat on the Ferris wheel points toward the centre of the wheel only once in its orbit around the centre. Nothing like the Moon at all, which remains aligned such that the same face remains pointed at the Earth at all times.”
Apparently Engiish is MF’s second language. Did I say the chair of the ferris wheel acts in a similar motion to the moon?
Carry on with your confusion.
All that’s an awful lot of waffling to basically end up saying, HGS thinks “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the diagram on the right, and Gordon thinks “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the diagram on the left:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Regardless of how you want to describe it kinematically – as a rotation about a central point, as “curvilinear translation” (as Gordon defines it) or even as “rectilinear translation bent into a curve by gravity”, the motion on the left, when you consider the forces involved, is the one to correctly portray “orbital motion without axial rotation”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
‘This seems to me to be curvilinear motion.’
This sentence sums up all the problems the non-spinners have.
Given a choice between what ‘seems to be’ and what the facts actually are, these guys will always go with the former.
‘when you consider the forces involved’
D”However, Earths gravity bends the Moons trajectory slightly, sending the Moon onto another straight-line path. A moment later, it bends it onto another path, and so on.
Earths gravity eases the same face of the Moon onto ever changing LINEAR paths. Every point behind that face, including the points on the face itself, are turning about the Earths centre in concentric circles. Each point follows a tangential path to a radial line from the Earths centre.”
Wrong. The Moon is not a vehicle with wheels or a horse with legs.
The front of the Moon does not have to point in the direction of motion. The Moon does not even have a ‘front’ or a ‘back’.
To get the Moon to immediately turn upon entering orbit, would require a HUGE TORQUE, which is not available from gravity.*
When you consider gravity acting on a sphere, it acts as if it is a single force through the center of mass (CM).
One more thing Newton proved.
“The Law of Universal Gravitation states that every point mass attracts every other point mass in the universe by a force pointing in a straight line between the centers-of-mass of both points, and this force is proportional to the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to their separation This attractive force always points inward, from one point to the other. The Law applies to all objects with masses, big or small. Two big objects can be considered as point-like masses, if the distance between them is very large compared to their sizes or if they are spherically symmetric. For these cases the mass of each object can be represented as a point mass located at its center-of-mass.
The force thru the CM can ONLY cause the path of the Moons CM to bend, into an orbit (as you described).
Such a force can apply NO TORQUE on the Moon. No turning force.
Therefore the Moon, with initially NO rotation, will not ‘turn about the Earths centre’.
*A tiny torque (due to a tiny asymmetry) acting for millions of years causes tidal locking.
The more the clowns pound on their keyboards, the funnier they get.
Above, Nate rambles incessantly, getting almost everything thing wrong.
He even argues with himself about whether gravity can produce a torque, or not. (It can’t.)
That’s why this is so much fun.
“whether gravity can produce a torque, or not. (It can’t.)”
Hey! We agree then, JD.
But now you’ll have to argue with DREMT, who thinks it does, it seems.
Because he says that a Moon with NO initial rotation wrt the stars, starts rotating after encountering the Earths gravity.
Not turning, then turning. That means a TORQUE has been applied!
Wrong Nate. You still haven’t learned the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
It’s called a “learning disability”.
JD,
We agree that in this scenario the Moon was not initially rotating wrt the stars.
We agree that once in orbit, it is rotating wrt the stars.
We agree that no torque is provided by gravity.
What specifically do you disagree with?
I can’t tell.
Nate, I have no idea what “scenario” you are referring to.
But, Moon is NOT rotating on its axis. “Relative to the stars” is just a way to confuse the issue. A racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis, but viewed from outside the track, the horse could appear to be rotating on its axis, to an uneducated person.
Newton developed calculus for the purpose of explaining orbital motion. Until his work, it was not known how the forces resulted in steering an orbiting body. We now know what orbital motion is because of Newton.
And, poor Bind tries to misrepresent Newton’s work!
Is Bind incompetent, dishonest, or both?
The only Newton JD is familiar with is Fig Newton.
Begone, troll!
“Child Gone Stupid” says “The only Newton JD is familiar with is Fig Newton.”
The poor child can’t get any of the physics correct, so he attempts clown humor. He continually tries to use kinematics to solve orbital motion. He’s so uneducated he does not understand “kinematics” is the study of bodies in motion, without forces acting on them. From wikipedia:
“Kinematics is a branch of classical mechanics that describes the motion of points, bodies (objects), and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without considering the forces that cause them to move.”
Orbital motion involves the forces acting on the object (Moon). It is the vector resultant of those forces that produces orbital motion. Issac Newton developed the calculus specifically to understand how gravity affects the orbiting bodies. The poor child is unable to understand when others try to teach him, because he can’t understand the physics. He can only deal in kiddie stuff, like his adolescent comments about cookies and throwing people under his school bus.
So, here’s orbital motion, dumbed down for the kiddies:
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
Notice that, “as viewed from the stars”, the school bus is upside-down, on opposite sides of Earth. But, “upside-down” is NEVER happening, in REALITY. The school bus is “orbiting”, not “rotating on its axis”. Kiddies are confused by “as viewed from the stars”.
It’s difficult for little kiddies to understand physics. That’s why they have to steal other peoples’ names. They’re afraid to use their own.
Nothing new.
Predicted response:
“An orbit is just a path, clown.”
No matter how many times you explain it to him, he just ignores it and carries on with kinematic descriptions.
Yes DREMT, clowns are predictable. They reject science. They reject reality. The only thing they value is their agenda.
And often their agenda is just trying to pretend they’re not losers….
‘ Until his work, it was not known how the forces resulted in steering an orbiting body.’
I don’t believe ‘steering’ was what he said or had in mind, as in steering a vehicle or pony.
A planet has no wheels, legs, steering wheel, or reins. It has no front and back.
It has no need to POINT in the direction of its travel like vehicles and horses, that you guys are most familiar with.
Just because its familiar from your everyday experience, doesnt make it applicable to all things beyond your experience.
That’s the mistake you guys are making.
‘ The only thing they value is their agenda.’
Rotating the Moon is helping our agenda?
Yes, only if our agenda is correcting fake physics.
ibid.
Poor JD. Always on the losing end. He doesn’t realize that kinematics can describe any type of motion. That’s why its referred to sometimes as the geometry of motion.
Say hello to Fig and Postma for me.
Hey child, why don’t you ask all your idols if a school bus driving around Earth would be upside-down half the trip?
It’s traveling upside-down “relative to the stars”, and as you know, that’s all that matters to uneducated kids.
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
Point missed.
“The quote you provide says nothing about the Moon rotating around a tilted axis. They are trying to ascertain where the axis might be compared to the Moons orbital plane.”
Guys, this is illogical.
A dude rolls a bowling ball. You film it. What axis is it rotating around?
It could be anywhere.
How would you tell where it is?
On slow mo review of the film, you notice one of the holes in the ball is moving in a perfect straight line path. It must lie on the axis! It is a POLE.
Now another guy holds the ball and walks the same path. You film it.
Now the ball is not rotating. There is NO axis of rotation to be found. All points on the ball are moving in perfect straight line paths.
If a sphere does not rotate around an axis, then THERE IS NO AXIS.
If an axis is found, that is PROOF of rotation around that axis.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/28/anti-science-l-a-times-hypes-propaganda-denying-global-wide-medieval-warm-period-and-little-ice-age/
And says:
“This alarmist hyped new “study” is addressed in a superb article at the JoNova website demonstrating the complete lack of scientific veracity of this studies claims.
There is nothing I can add to show how politically contrived and inane the claims are from this new “study” beyond the excellent presentation in the JoNova article.”
Link:
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/erasing-2000-years-of-the-medieval-warm-period-little-ice-age-found-on-every-continent/
The bit about warmer ocean going to Indian Ocean at 900 meter depth is interesting.
I don’t have particular explanation regarding it, other than “Hey, wow, that looks like actual global warming is happening!”
Though it could be related to “merely” ocean volcanic activity- or a “localized event”.
gbaikie…thanks for link.
The Little Ice Age is well documented in Europe by adventurers and people living in affected regions. Glaciers expanded enormously in the Alps.
The Thames River froze from the ocean inward, an unprecedented feat. In Holland, ice skating was invented on the frozen canals.
It’s ludicrous to suppose this cooling affected only Europe for 400 years.
gbaikie…”The bit about warmer ocean going to Indian Ocean at 900 meter depth is interesting.
I don’t have particular explanation regarding it, other than “Hey, wow, that looks like actual global warming is happening!””
Alarmists have become so desperate to prop up their pseudo-science they will leave no stone unturned with the hope that a supportive clue lies under it, no matter how silly.
But this more topic:
Elon Musk says SpaceX could land on the moon in 2 years, Business Insider
“We recently asked Jeff DeWit, NASA’s chief financial officer, about Musk’s statements for an upcoming episode of “Business Insider Today,” a top daily news show on Facebook. DeWit, who’s in charge of helping the agency make the most cost-effective decisions, said he thought that the odds of SpaceX pulling off a private lunar landing with Starship before NASA can return there “are slim,” but he did not rule out the possibility of a NASA-SpaceX partnership on a moon mission. In fact, he underscored the possibility. “More power to him. I hope he does it,” DeWit said of Musk. “If he can do it, we’ll partner with them, and we’ll get there faster.” He added: “This isn’t about us doing it — it’s about America doing it. He’s [got] an American company. I’d love to partner with him and get that done.” SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment about DeWit’s statements.”
http://www.nasawatch.com/
and link provided:
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-elon-musk-moon-landing-nasa-cfo-jeff-dewit-2019-7
Keep arguing about the moon if you like. Meanwhile:
“As millions of people face another heatwave in Europe, after a weekend of sweltering temperatures in the U.S. Midwest and East Coast, scientists say July will likely be the hottest July on record, following the hottest June on record. These types of heatwaves are expected to become more frequent throughout the world as global warming continues, say scientists.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports the average global temperature for June was 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees. NOAA also reported record-breaking decreases in sea ice coverage in the Arctic and Antarctica.”
https://time.com/5630009/heatwave-climate-crisis-june-record/?xid=tcoshare
And, you cannot blame El Nino this time.
I wonder what UAH will reveal for July?
mickey…”you cannot blame El Nino this time”.
It’s summer…it’s weather.
DM,
You wrote –
“These types of heatwaves are expected to become more frequent throughout the world as global warming continues, say scientists.”
These are the same besotted dimwits who stupidly believe that climate determines weather, are they?
Try and name just one of these fools – without simultaneous naming a fool, a fraud or a fake! No wonder you hide behind a pseudonym.
Thermometers are designed to measure heat, not CO2. What do you perceive to be the source of predicted increased heat? Can’t think of anything? What a surprise! Even as a merchant of Doom, it turns out you a fraud – with nothing to sell.
Cheers.
“Dr” Myki says: “And, you cannot blame El Nino this time.”
Myki, your inability to understand science, and your immature ramblings, give you away. You are NOT a PhD. You are a 12-year-old, pretending.
Here’s some reality for you:
This last El Niño was weak. ENSO has just started changing back to neutral. But the warming affects could easily last another month, or so. UAH global will pick up the El Niño affects likely into October, even assuming it continues changing to neutral.
Sorry to ruin your “the planet is burning up” scary-story.
Feel free to hide under your bed, regardless.
The 3 stooges!, ranting in unison ! the usual drivel!
Note how unpleasant facts are to the delusional.
Or remain an uneducated child avoiding reality.
Entirely your choice.
Remind me, are you Curly, Moe or Larry?
It appears you’ve made your choice….
The main factor to be “blamed” is something conveniently dismissed in IPCC reports: reduced cloud cover – the minor increase in CO2 concentration (a lot of which has nothing to do with direct human activity) is not material here:
https://panamazonsynodwatch.com/cloud-cover-global-climate/
mickey…”(NOAA) reports the average global temperature for June was 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees.”
Some idiots will believe anything.
60F…not even room temperature.
NOAA can no longer be trusted with their surface record chicanery and only a buffoon like you would quote them.
Old man, I guess you never studied statistics.
mickey…”I guess you never studied statistics”.
Unfortunately, I did, with a stats prof who could write on the blackboard as fast as he could talk. A stats whiz kid. As we tried to sneak out the door at end of class, thinking he’d forgotten to assign us homework, he’d stop us and assign problems from the end of the chapter so fast we had trouble marking them down.
I learned engineering stats and how not to apply them incorrectly. NOAA, on the other hand, abuses statistics. They think it is better to throw out real raw data and replace it with interpolated and homogenized pseudo-data from stations up to 1200 miles away.
In California, they throw out data from the cooler Sierra-Nevada mountains and replace it with data synthesized from 3 stations near the warmer ocean. They threw out data from Bolivia, high in the Andes and replaced it with interpolated data from adjacent warmer regions.
They use one station to cover the entire Canadian Arctic. In fact they use less than 1500 stations, by their own admission, to cover the entire global surface area.
Now why would NOAA want to do that? Because they are AGW advocates and they want to cheat people into believing the degree of warming claimed by climate modelers is actual and not bogus, like it is.
You must have failed then.
You seem to think that the temperature of a station is related to the temperature trend at that station. How stupid is that?
I hope you never got to build anything as an engineer.
Ian, please stop trolling.
It’s summer time.
In winter you get snow
“In winter you get snow”
Maybe you did. We had, for the nth time in sequence, no more than a few cm of it. Far far too much wind instead.
And… we aren’t here in Southern Spain near Cordoba, but in Northeastern Germany.
Oh, don’t misunderstand me!
I’m very satisfied. I don’t like snow, let alone ice.
Well, in Southern Californian, I didn’t get any snow that stuck on the ground, except the local hills, the grapevine, but of course, all skiing mountains got a fair amount {I think last year was above average}.
Flynn
“Daily motion, or daily movements (take your pick) does not mean rotation about its axis. There are adequate Latin words for rotation, which Newton has not used in this instance no doubt for good reason.”
Endless repetition of the same nonsense.
Here is one more time Newton in Latin (p. 51 ff.)
https://tinyurl.com/yytuurr9 – (tinyURLed, link too long)
“Quoniam vero lunae CIRCA AXEM SUUM uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est: huius facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis eius semper respiciet quamproxime & propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviab it hinc inde a terra.
*
You can’t change Newton’s words, Flynn.
You must prove he was wrong, and with him: all the science men who continued his great work, e.g. Lagrange and Laplace.
And that YOU would never be able to.
*
I ‘ll paste the original Latin text of Newton’s Principia as long as you and your friends-in-denial continue to deny it.
No problem for me.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369059
Huffman
No chance for you to convince anybody else than
– Robertson
– Flynn
– DREMT
and
– yourself.
*
You perfectly know that there is no trick at all: I only EXACTLY reproduced Newton’s original wording.
But you deny Newton’s results without being courageous enough to admit your deny.
I know Huffman: your next reply is inevitable.
I don’t mind.
Feel free to deny, deny and deny…
One day you will give up.
The Gospel according to Bindidon continues…
Bind keep “binding” reality.
He falsely accuses me of denying Newton, while he has been caught misrepresenting Newton.
He has to falsely accuse and misrepresent, to keep “binding” reality.
Huffman / DREMT
“The Gospel according to Bindidon continues”
Indeed, especially when lies like
“while he has been caught misrepresenting Newton.”
are posted here.
I never misrepresented Newton here, and you know that.
All the texts I published came either from Newton’s original text in Latin, or from the translation by his contemporary Andrew Motte.
You two, and your friends-in-deny continue to misinterpret Newton because you all are not courageous to write that in your opinion, Newton was wrong. Instead, you accuse me of misrepresenting him.
Hombres sin cojones.
It’s all explained here, Bind. See if you can find an honest person to explain it to you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369059
DREMT
” I don’t even understand what your point is any more.”
Oh, really? You really don’t? So what!
The last time I published the parts of Newton’s Principia was for an answer to Robertson’s nonsense asking
“I can see Newton claiming that the Moon rotates wrt to the stars but not about its own axis.”
That was yesterday, 2019 Jul 28; look here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369063
Show me where either
– I misrepresented Newton
or
– he is wrong.
You can’t explain why the Monn does not rotate about its axis when having read his Principia, DREMT.
And that is your problem.
You don’t have an argument, Bindidon. You just keep posting snippets of Newton’s writings, in Latin, as if it’s some sort of holy scripture. You do this over and over and over and over again. I don’t even understand what your point is any more.
(still none the wiser as to what your point is)
DREMT
“(still none the wiser as to what your point is)”
Oh M G. My point is:
– Newton writes that the Moon rotates about its axis;
– You pretend the contrary but are not courageous enough to write Newton was wrong;
– You therefore pretend I would “just keep posting snippets of Newton’s writings, in Latin, as if it’s some sort of holy scripture”.
What about you bringing now really a scientific proof that Newton was wrong (and consequently, all those who continued his work) ?
No racehorses, no coins, no cannonballs. A clean, sober mathematical proof.
*
No barycenter blah blah, that does not have anything to do with wether or not Moon rotates about its OWN axis.
This is pure distraction, as all pairs of celestial bodies orbit about their common barycenter, that is valid even for Earth and Sun.
{ Maybe you send a mail to Aleksandar Tomic in Belgrade, like I did in January, and ask him why Newton, Lagrange and Laplace were all wrong? I of course got no answer from him, ha ha. }
You’re such an oddly aggressive, bizarre person.
You don’t have an argument of your own, on this subject. You clearly don’t understand mine. You just defer constantly to what you think Newton meant. Then you demand people prove you/him wrong.
And seem to get really angry about it.
I guess that’s your point!? No idea.
Bind seems to fit the pattern. When they finally figure out they are wrong, their rambling turns to belligerence.
Nothing new.
Bin,
The only latin the clown JD and friends comprehend is pig latin. It complements their fake physics.
Ytray ostingpay Ewtonsnay itingwray inway igpay atinlay. Atthay ouldshay oday ethay icktray!
‘You just defer constantly to what you think Newton meant. ‘
No he constantly refers to, and quotes, what Newton actually said.
He very clearly said the Moon rotates on its axis and orbits and shows how that causes libration.
Cassini also explained all of the Moon’s motions the same way. And this has been understood for 350 y.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws
As usual you offer no alternative explanation of Libration, Poles, the ‘apparent’ axis of rotation.
You guys ignore these facts, distort, twist what people say, even Newton, to pretend it agrees with your erroneous ideas.
It doesnt.
Newton got it right. Cassini got it wrong.
But, you should like Cassini, he was into astrology.
binny…” Newton writes that the Moon rotates about its axis;”
Newton alludes to it in passing and spends no time whatsoever expanding on what he meant. You cannot explain it yourself yet your entire argument is based on a throwaway sentence from Newton.
binny…”No racehorses, no coins, no cannonballs. A clean, sober mathematical proof”.
Can you point me to Newton’s mathematical proof that the Moon rotates about its axis? I just posted Dremt’s link to Tesla, where he proves conclusively that the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
I think Newton would have been impressed with Tesla’s reasoning. It’s all mathematical.
‘Newton got it right. Cassini got it wrong.’
Considering that they agreed on the Moon’s motion, how can that be?
Cassini agreed with a Bindidon’s misrepresentation of Newton.
And you fell for it….
Quote Newton and show it being ‘misrepresented’
Nate requests: “Quote Newton and show it being misrepresented”
Nate, if I take the trouble to do that, will you agree to stop commenting on this blog for 60 days?
Ha! More attempted extortion.
No thanks. If I leave, who will point out all the flaws in your physics?
I can see why that would be valuable, though.
binny…”You must prove he [Newton] was wrong, and with him: all the science men who continued his great work, e.g. Lagrange and Laplace”.
If any of those scientists said what you claimed, we already have proved them wrong. I just don’t think they said anything like what you are claiming.
I have challenged you to prove my concentric circle proof wrong and you keep hiding behind misquotes from Newton. That’s why I call you an idiot. You don’t understand the physics and you insist on appealing to authority.
For the first time since at least one year, Japan’s Met Agency’s El Nino forecast page
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
shows a bit of blue. 10 % La Nina by September this year. Blu is icumen in!
about curvilinear translation…
wiki…”In physics, translation (Translational motion) is movement that changes the position of an object, as opposed to rotation.”.
I interpret that to mean the body is not rotating as it translates.
translation…”The motion in which all the particles of a body move through the same distance in the same time is called translatory motion. There are two types of translatory motions: rectilinear motion; curvilinear motion”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_motion
I think it’s fair to define curvilinear motion as any motion along a continuous curve that meets the definition of translation above but is not in a straight line. In other words, there is very little difference between rectilinear translation and curvilinear translation.
Merriam-Webster…curvilinear….
1 : consisting of or bounded by curved lines : represented by a curved line
…represented by a curved line.
What defines a curved line? In math…”A curve is the image of a continuous function…”
A circle is a continuous function.
We have been talking about the motion of a horse around a circular track, the motion of a wooden horse moving in circles on a carousel, and the Moon in a circular orbit around the Earth.
From above…”The motion in which all the particles of a body move through the same distance in the same time is called translatory motion. There are two types of translatory motions: rectilinear motion; curvilinear motion”.
Do all the particles in the horses and the Moon move through the same distance in the same time…yes!!!!
There is nothing in the definition above to claim all the particles have to move in parallel, but I’ll go with that.
Do all the particles in the horses and the Moon move in parallel (concentric) curves….yes!!!
It also says above that translation is not rotation, meaning the particles in the bodies are moving in straight or curved lines and not rotating about a local axis..
I think we have pretty well proved our point.
To cap it off, we have Dremt’s post from Nicola Tesla…
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
“In this article Dr. Tesla proves conclusively by theory and experiment that all the kinetic energy of a rotating mass is purely translational and that the moon contains absolutely no rotational energy, in other words, does not rotate on its axis. EDITOR”.
Although Tesla’s proof is rather in-depth, it makes sense that the Moon, as a rigid body, is trying to move in a straight line at every instant while keeping the same face to the Earth. Therefore, its kinetic energy has to be in a straight line with no rotational element about a local axis.
The resultant orbit about an external axis, the Earth’s centre, would have a rotational element about that axis, but that rotation is due to gravitational force and has nothing to do with a local angular momentum.
Gordon moans:
“Do all the particles in the horses and the Moon move through the same distance in the same time…yes!!!!”
Wrong! The only thing Gordon proves is his complete and absolute ignorance of basic kinematics, and with gusto!!!
Take a horse running around a circular track. The outside edge of the horse, being at a radius of R2, is covering a longer distance than the inside of the horse, being at a smaller radius of R1. Arc length = radius times the angle in radians. Ring a bell? Apparently not. So all particles in the horse DO NOT move through the same distance in the same time.
Same argument with the moon. So both are not translating.
Besides the wiki definition of translation, other definitions of translation prove Gordon wrong as well. The definition from Brown University kinematic lecture notes:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration”
Does every line in the horse remain parallel to its original position? No. Assume the horse starts the race at the 12:00 noon position facing west. Draw a line through the horses’ direction of travel. The line is in the east-west direction. The horse starts the race and performs a quarter lap, and is now in the 9:00 o’clock position. Draw a line through the horses’ direction of travel. The line is now in the north-south direction. Is an east-west line parallel to a north-south line? No. So a line through the horse does not remain parallel to its original position, therefor NO translation.
Do all points in the horse have the same velocity? No. The formula for tangential velocity: Vt = ω r. Since the outside of the horse is at a greater radius than the inside of the horse, the velocities will not be the same, therefor, NO translation.
“Child Gone Stupid”, you are still confused. “Orbiting” is a completely different motion than your version of curvilinear and rectilinear translation. Orbital motion is not described by kinematic definitions. You just don’t have the technical background to understand.
Orbital motion results from the vector sum due to gravity and linear momentum. Someday, when you grow up, you may be able to learn some physics.
Don’t feel bad Gordon, JD gets it wrong as well.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364245
“Wrong again, DA. The horse is changing directions. The motion is translational. There is no axial rotation.
You just don’t understand the relevant physics, and can’t learn.
Nothing new.”
JD admits the horse is changing direction and calls the motion translational. A translating object NEVER changes direction.
“TRANSLATION. A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the movement.”
[https://previa.uclm.es/profesorado/ajbarbero/FF_English/Mechanics%20of%20Rigid%20Body%20Ia.%20Physics08.pdf]
Total bummer, man. Well all is not lost, JD has other talents. He’s the first person to invent the non animated gif. LMAO.
As has been explained numerous times, “instantaneously translation” is a way to explain orbital motion, for those that don’t understand orbital motion.
But, your problem is you can’t understand no matter how it is explained.
The clowns continually make up their own definitions contrary to the the principles of physics.
Please provide a reference source to support your delusional definition.
(this won’t happen. He’ll just give a long spiel of mumbo-jumbo pretend physics)
3, 2, 1 ……….
Stay tuned. Voodoo physics will commence shortly.
Child, when you can make a comment without insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, then people might take you seriously.
Otherwise, you’re just another uneducated child that only knows how to type.
Nothing new.
So no reference given for this “instantaneous translation”. WHy am I surprised?
So what?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369344
‘So what?’
Before Newton, we had Kepler who described the motion of planets. He didnt need to know the reasons to DESCRIBE it.
1.Describing motion that is observed. Kinematics
2.Explaining motion in terms of forces. Dynamics.
Two separate activities, both valid.
You guys are mixing the two together as if they can’t be separated. They can.
Then your explanation in terms of Forces is wrong.
Gravity cannot produce torque on a sphere. It applies the same force to the right and to the left of the Moons Center of Mass, CM. The same force above and below the Moon’s CM.
As you know, applying the same force on both sides of a pivot point is balanced, it will not TURN an object.
It cannot cause a non-rotating Moon to start rotating.
Here you go HGS, instead of just linking to comments, I’ll write it out in full for you, because I expect you’re too lazy to click on the link yourself. This was part of a comment by Gordon, not my own words, as shouldn’t be too hard for people to have worked out.
““You are failing to understand why the Moon is in orbit. It has only one force acting on it, Earth’s gravity. The Moon remains in orbit because its LINEAR momentum is sufficient to overcome the acceleration on it toward the Earth caused by Earth’s gravity. In fact, it’s orbit is a resultant path between the Moon’s linear momentum and the Earth’s gravitational force.
Any body with linear momentum passing the Earth at the distance of the Moon will experience one of three effects, depending on it’s momentum. If the momentum is too great, the body will be hurled off into space on a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit. If the momentum is insufficient, the body will spiral in toward the Earth. If the momentum is just right, the body will go into orbit around the Earth.
If that body is not rotating, and has the same face toward the Earth, while it has linear momentum, and there is no gravitational force acting on it, the body will continue in a straight line. However, Earth’s gravity bends the Moon’s trajectory slightly, sending the Moon onto another straight-line path. A moment later, it bends it onto another path, and so on.
Earth’s gravity eases the same face of the Moon onto ever changing LINEAR paths. Every point behind that face, including the points on the face itself, are turning about the Earth’s centre in concentric circles. Each point follows a tangential path to a radial line from the Earth’s centre.
The Moon completes its orbit without having to rotate at all due to the interaction of it’s linear momentum and Earth’s gravity It’s orbit is equivalent to a straight line trajectory and it has no need to rotate.
That is true in any reference frame…there is no local rotation about an axis.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
The animations in the linked article should make that even clearer, and settle the issue.”
Nate has apparently lost it, again.
He appears to be arguing with himself and also rambling incoherently.
I probably shouldn’t be laughing….
So no reference source. Why am I not surprised, again? Just a another snooze fest of voodoo physics.
I’m sorry for your argument loss.
‘The Moon completes its orbit without having to rotate at all due to the interaction of it’s linear momentum and Earth’s gravity It’s orbit is equivalent to a straight line trajectory and it has no need to rotate.’
Oh, Ok. Then the Moon is NOT rotating.
Small problem.
That contradicts everything you guys have been saying over and over about our MOON, that it rotates!
“Since people try to argue that the moon’s motion is a translation, plus a rotation on its own axis, but you could also describe it as simply a rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter, with no axial rotation, it’s clear that kinematic descriptions alone will not settle this issue.”
Clearly, whatever the rotational axis, you guys agreed that the Moon is rotating relative to the stars.
You can’t have it both ways.
Not rotating before entering orbit. NOW rotating.
Sorry folks, that means a torque was applied.
“Earths gravity bends the Moons trajectory slightly, sending the Moon onto another straight-line path. A moment later, it bends it onto another path, and so on.”
Yep. Thats what Newton said.
“Earths gravity eases the same face of the Moon onto ever changing LINEAR paths. Every point behind that face, including the points on the face itself, are turning about the Earths centre in concentric circles. Each point follows a tangential path to a radial line from the Earths centre.”
Nope that does not follow. Not what Newton said.
The Moon is not like a car. It does not need to change its orientation and point its front end toward the direction of travel.
Why? Because a car or a horse cannot travel in ANY direction without reorienting its body. Their motions are constrained.
Just get 2 friends and try to push a car sideways in the direction of its axels. It wont budge. Put the car in neutral, it still wont budge.
Tie a rope to a horse’s saddle and try to drag it sideways. It’s either going to fall over or turn its body to face you. It cant be dragged sideways.
An object in space in vacuum has no such constraint on its motion. It has no need to turn its orientation in order to move in a direction.
Push it sideways, with gravity, and it will move (accelerate) in that direction. Gravity will “bend the Moons trajectory slightly, sending the Moon onto another straight-line path.”
But it will NOT change its orientation. Why should it?
Without a torque, it can’t.
JD must remember physics 1 where we all learned how to describe motion, ie kinematics.
Galileo figured all this out.
“Kinematics-the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion.
the features or properties of motion in an object.”
Then, just like Newton did, we learned all about forces-the CAUSES of motion.
‘Orbital motion is not described by kinematic definitions.’ makes no sense.
because there is nothing else available other than Kinematics, to describe orbital motion.
Nate believes: “because there is nothing else available other than Kinematics, to describe orbital motion.”
Wrong Nate. Orbital motion is explained by the resultant of the two vectors acting on a celectial body.
“celestial”
Obviously the point is too subtle goes way over your head.
Kinematics is DESCRIBING motion, of any kind.
Astronomers like Kepler were able to observe and describe orbital motion WAY before Newton explained it in terms of Force laws.
We should be able to do that too. Yes?
ibid.
As usual, you cannot backup your empty claims.
BTW,
‘ibid’
Huh? You are using the same reference as me??
nate…”because there is nothing else available other than Kinematics, to describe orbital motion”.
You can calculate the orbit using forces (kinetics), while treating the Moon’s momentum as a pseudo-force. Newton had no idea what kinematics meant, he worked it out using geometry, masses, and centripetal force.
Read the recent post I made (from Dremt) by Tesla. He does it using kinetic energy.
“Newton had no idea what kinematics meant, he worked it out using geometry, masses, and centripetal force.”
Of course he did. He followed Galieo and Kepler.
Galileo described projectile motion in terms of kinematics.
Kepler described orbital motion as ellipses, and equal areas in equal times.
What Newton did was develop dynamics, EXPLAINING kinematics of projectiles in terms of Forces and F = MA.
He EXPLAINED elliptical orbital motion resulting from inverse square law of gravity (using Calculus, then geometry).
All that’s an awful lot of waffling to basically end up saying, HGS thinks “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the diagram on the right, and Gordon thinks “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the diagram on the left:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Regardless of how you want to describe it kinematically – as a rotation about a central point, as “curvilinear translation” (as Gordon defines it) or even as “rectilinear translation bent into a curve by gravity”, the motion on the left, when you consider the forces involved, is the one to correctly portray “orbital motion without axial rotation”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
It would be usual to say that after explaining what’s wrong with what I said.
And Gordon is a no-show as usual. Probably tired of looking like an idiot. Probably out clubbing baby seals.
stupid…”And Gordon is a no-show as usual. ”
There’s only so often I can explain basic physics to you. I get more intelligent answers talking to myself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369515
Gordon,
Perhaps you can explain how the length of two concentric circles with differenct radii can have the same length?
Because that is what you are saying with your following statement:
“Do all the particles in the horses and the Moon move through the same distance in the same timeyes!!!!”
Gordon doesn’t usually comment at this time of day, and all your discussion of kinematic descriptions are besides the point anyway.
‘Orbital motion results from the vector sum due to gravity and linear momentum. ‘
JD loses more physics IQ points. Now down to 68.
We’ve discussed this JD, momentum and force do not ADD. They have different units.
Keep misrepresenting what I said, Nate.
Such tricks are all you’ve got.
Nothing new.
nate…”momentum and force do not ADD. They have different units.”
force = f = ma = = mg = m.d2v/dt2
momentum = p = mv
Do you see velocity in both equations? OK, get out your vector calculus textbook and look up how to deal with a vector with a constant velocity and one that is changing.
Momentum is a form of force. It requires a force to get the mass to constant velocity and it requires a force to slow it down and stop it. Certainly, if a large mass with momentum strikes another object it acts like a force.
The velocity in the acceleration due to gravity is changing constantly. It can still be regarded as a vector that is changing.
It’s not straightforward but it can be done.
Yes Gordon, thats a diff eqn. Not simply a vector sum.
Weve been over this already.
stupid…”Take a horse running around a circular track. The outside edge of the horse, being at a radius of R2, is covering a longer distance than the inside of the horse….”
We are talking about a rigid body. The angular velocity of a rigid body DOES NOT depend on the velocity of each particle, rather it is measured by the change in angle of a radial line from the body through the axis upon which it is turning.
You are confusing particle kinematics with rigid body kinematics and that is the danger of reading about it in a book and not having studied it formally.
All particles in a rigid body are deemed to have completed a rotation in the same time. I have already pointed this out to you but you rush to respond with ad homs and insults rather than considering what has been demonstrated to you.
The Earth’s rotation is not dependent on the motion of individual particles. It is measured by the radial velocity of a line from the axis to the surface, and that line always turns at the same velocity of one rotation in 24 hours.
People on the equator are moving with a velocity of nearly 1000 mpg whereas someone a few feet from the poles is turning much slower. A person 5 feet from a Pole turns in a circumference of about 30 feet in 24 hours….a bit over a foot per hour.
If you are going to bray about kinematics, at least learn the subject.
Gordon squeals:
“We are talking about a rigid body. The angular velocity of a rigid body DOES NOT depend on the velocity of each particle, rather it is measured by the change in angle of a radial line from the body through the axis upon which it is turning.”
Poor Gordon is totally confused. The requirement for curvilinear translation is that all points on the body have the same VELOCITY, NOT the same angular velocity. You keep ignoring this over and over and over. The outside edge of the race horse, or race car is on a concentric circular path with a greater radius than the inside edge of the horse or race car. Therefore the velocities are different, which means the object is not exhibiting curvilinear translation. Get it now??? We look at the VELOCITIES of points on the object to determine if it is translating. This point seems to go in one ear and out the other, with you.
You even agreed with the wiki definition that:
“The motion in which all the particles of a body move through the same distance in the same time is called translatory motion.”
But then you made a statement contracting this definition:
“Do all the particles in the horses and the Moon move through the same distance in the same time…yes!!!!”
That is totally wrong. The particles of the horse on its outer edge are on a circular path with a greater radius than those on the inside edge of the horse. Therefor they do NOT “move through the same distance in the same time”. They all have the same angular velocity, but that is NOT the requirement for curvilinear translation.
And you accuse ME with ignorance in kinematics? What a joke. The following is another of your ignorant statements:
““As for the velocity. a radial line from the centre of the circle through the car will measure the velocity of the car in radians per second.”
WRONG, Gordon. “Angular velocity” is measured in radians per second, NOT velocity.
You have been spouting your nonsense definition of curvilinear translation for over a year now.
…and still, after all this time, the “controversy” over the definition of “curvilinear translation” will not resolve this issue, no matter how many times you debate it…
Poor Gordon is AWOL again. Too busy clubbing baby seals, I imagine. It’s a Canadian pastime.
A person can take only so much embarrassment. There is no shame in admitting you are wrong, Gordon. Well, there is actually, but whose counting? I am.
If an object rotates (or more specifically, revolves) about an axis that is separate from the object, the same face of the object is turned towards that central axis, throughout. The particles making up the object move in concentric circles about the central axis.
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b).
“…the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
The particles making up the moon move in concentric circles, or ellipses, about the Earth-moon barycenter.
OK, so kinematic descriptions won’t settle the issue, as there are at least two different ways to describe the moon’s motion…
…so you move on from kinematic descriptions:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369548
This has been explained 47 times…
‘Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b).’
is a picture of a RIGID BODY.
The Moon-Earth system is not a rigid body.
There is no reason to apply rules of a rigid body to two separated bodies, because unlike the parts of a rigid body, the two separated masses can freely move or rotate relative to each other on any axes..
as indeed the Earth and Moon do!
Sir Isaac Newton –
“And the Vibrations or Pulses of this Medium, that they may cause the alternate Fits of easy Transmission and easy Reflexion, must be swifter than Light, and by consequence above 700,000 times swifter than Sounds. And therefore the elastick force of this Medium, in proportion to its density, must be above 700000 x 700000 (that is, above 490,000,000,000) times greater than the elastick force of the Air is in proportion to its density. ”
Nope. The vibrations are not swifter than light, and the Medium (Aether) does not seem to exist. Newton was unaware of quantum physics, and came up with fits of easy transmission and reflexion to explain certain observed phenomena.
Does thinking Sir Isaac was in error mean that I am smarter than Newton? Not at all. Facts are facts. Sometimes understanding why requires knowledge not available at the time.
Nobody is right all of the time about everything, as far as I am aware.
If anybody wants to think the Moon rotates on its axis, they are free to do so. It makes precisely no difference to man nor beast. Just another red herring to avoid acknowledging that the supposed GHE cannot even be described, let alone observed or quantified.
Cheers.
Mike…”The vibrations are not swifter than light, and the Medium (Aether) does not seem to exist. Newton was unaware of quantum physics, and came up with fits of easy transmission and reflexion to explain certain observed phenomena”.
I am with you in your claim that no one, not even Newton, is beyond error. However, I am curious as to the medium he was talking about. Wal Thornhill, an astronomer, has pointed out something important. Gravity seems to act instantaneously, which would make it many orders faster than light.
Light takes 8 minutes to get here from the Sun but according to Thornhill, gravity from the Sun has to act instantaneously, otherwise the solar system and the universe would be in chaos.
Of course, that’s harder to prove than claim. Gravity is a field, like a magnetic field, but so is light.
Clausius made errors with his understanding of the relationship between heat and electromagnetic energy. He thought heat was emitted from a body as rays. Like Newton, however, it was his insight that impressed me.
When he defined internal energy for the 1st law he used the interaction of atoms to explain it via heat and work yet he couldn’t have known much at all about the workings of atoms. Electrons had not even been discovered at that point.
He knew atoms vibrated and concluded based on the vibration that they must do work. He further concluded that heat was required to supply the work. Major stuff for those times.
Apparently Newton suffered from serious depression later in life. He had severe digestion problems and trouble sleeping. They exhumed the poor guy later and tested his hair, finding a high level of mercury.
Newton was an alchemist as well, and he would not have known about the effects of mercury on the nervous system.
Unlike binny, I can still admire Newton even though he was no doubt prone to error. I am sure you will agree he can be forgiven errors considering the immensity of what he produced in physics, especially given what he had to work with.
On the other hand, I doubt if he would have cared much what anyone thought of him. I have acquired the same attitude but that’s all me and Isaac have in common. ☺
Newton’s not helping my team right now.
Time to take trash his rep. He wasn’t all that bright..
MF must’ve watched the Mueller hearings.
stupid…”kinematics can describe any type of motion. Thats why its referred to sometimes as the geometry of motion”.
And that’s why Einstein screwed up so badly with his theory of relativity. Rather than observe conditions like an engineer, from the perspective of forces, he began with the acceleration of kinematics, sans forces, and lost tract of the fact that time, the measure of acceleration, does not exist, has nothing to do with force or mass, and that velocities near the speed of light have no bearing on the length of a measuring stick or the hands of a clock synchronized to Earth’s rotation.
Here’s an equation from kinematics:
s = vot + 1/2 at^2
It tells us the displacement of a body moving at initial velocity vo when a force adds an acceleration of 1/2at^2 is s. Force is not included, it is implied.
Let’s re-arrange the equation with vo = 0…
s = 1/2at^2
t^2 = 2s/a
t = (2s/a)^0.5
The last equation tells us that t is directly proportion to the displacement and inversely proportional to the acceleration.
Is that true physically? No, it’s not.
Why?? Because time is a human invention that is based on the rotation of the Earth on its axis. However, it was good enough for Einstein and all his followers. Einstein, in his GRT, called time the hands on a clock. An absolutely stupid thing to say.
Can anyone see a relationship of time in that equation to the length of a mass or the force that causes acceleration? No!!! So, Einstein and company presumed/invented a relationship. He has been royally criticized in many circles for doing that.
The math works in GRT, but the conclusions are seriously wrong. What would make time dilate in the last equation above? What would make s change length?
So from an egregious error in kinematics based on a bad presumption we are now saddled with space-time theory which some are using to replace gravity.
I was advised once to believe nothing I hear and only half of what I see. I have revised that to believing nothing, not even from Einstein. If you cannot prove it for yourself and you blindly accept a theory, you are kidding yourself.
There is nothing wrong whatsoever with saying, “I don’t know”.
Gordon says: “t = (2s/a)^0.5…Is that true physically? No, it’s not.”
Gordon, you may be referring to things at a different level, but at the level of “basic”, I have no problem with that equation. It can be verified both mathematically and experimentally.
Now, nonsense like the Arrhenius CO2 equation
ΔF = α * ln(C/Co) Watts/m^2
has no mathematical derivation and cannot be verified experimentally. The equation creates flux from nothing. It is pure pseudoscience.
JD…”Gordon, you may be referring to things at a different level, but at the level of basic, I have no problem with that equation”.
I have no problem with it either, at the level of basics. It tells us the time required for a mass or particle covering a distance 2s with an acceleration of a.
I used the equation only to demonstrate the transposition of time to the LH side of the equation. The only way time can dilate in relative motion is when it is on the LH side. That infers something unexplained causing time to dilate.
My own theory is that Einstein gave too much credit to the human mind when it came to observing relative motion. The human mind sees relative motion in a distorted manner. For example, if you are sitting in a train at a station and it starts to move, the faster it gets the closer the telephone poles along the track seems to get.
If you apply the equation I supplied, and the real distance between poles is s, then as the train gets faster, s gets smaller, and time appears to dilate. How would a human observer measure the actual distance between poles he is observing as the train gets progessively faster.
And are the poles getting closer together? No…they’re not. Only in the human mind. Same for time, it exists only in the human mind.
My beef is that Einstein et al are treating it as if time is a physical quantity that can dilate. In the equation in question, we are not dealing with relative motion, but in GRT, they have put the time parameter on the LHS of the equation and claimed that changes in force and mass affect time. Not only that, they have claimed that changes in velocity can affect length.
When a force acts on a mass in ideal conditions, there is nothing else acting on the mass. Time does not act on anything. GRT claims that as the mass approaches the speed of light, some mysterious force related to time causes the mass to change dimensions.
I think, somewhere, they have confused themselves by relying on kinematics and math rather than looking at the actual physical problem involving forces and masses.
Cam (galloping cam) claimed he has witnessed time dilate during particle acceleration. I urged him to go back and look at the problem more closely, to find another reason why time ‘seems’ to dilate. I am confident, if looked at closely, the real reason for the apparent dilation will be found. I am guessing it will be a flaw in human observation.
It’s simply not possible for the second to change since it is defined upon the rotation of the Earth, which is constant. The second is 1/86,400th (60 s x 60 min x 24 hr) of one Earth rotation.
If time dilates, then the Earth’s rotation must change its angular velocity. There is no other time known to mankind other than what we humans have defined. The arrow of time is sheer nonsense…an illusion of the human mind.
Gordon, as you are skeptical of “time-dilation”, you will enjoy the so-called “Resolution of the paradox in special relativity.”
(Scroll down to near the bottom of the link.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
‘If you cannot prove it for yourself and you blindly accept a theory, you are kidding yourself.’
You, like most of us, would have trouble ‘proving’ GR, because it is difficult.
That doesnt make it wrong. It means we need someone with the right expertise.
‘There is nothing wrong whatsoever with saying, ‘I dont know’.’
Indeed.
I don’t know how to operate a
Fire engine.
A nuclear power plant.
A jumbo jet.
A surgical laser.
But I am sure that some people do. And I am glad.
nate…I dont know how to operate a
Fire engine.
A nuclear power plant.
A jumbo jet.
A surgical laser”.
How about, I Nate, don’t know if a trace gas is warming our planet?
And…I Nate, don’t know if the Moon rotates about its axis?
mickey…”You seem to think that the temperature of a station is related to the temperature trend at that station. How stupid is that?”
No…that’s what NOAA thinks, not me. I think the temperature of a station is related to the raw data produced by its instruments. I think further that the raw data from each station should be used, not a statistical average between stations up to 1200 miles apart.
So you agree, NOAA is stupid?
Just to remind everybody, you stupidly complained that:
“In California, they throw out data from the cooler Sierra-Nevada mountains and replace it with data synthesized from 3 stations near the warmer ocean. They threw out data from Bolivia, high in the Andes and replaced it with interpolated data from adjacent warmer regions.”
Why do you think that temperature trends from warmer regions should be different from temperature trends based on data from cooler regions?
If you like, let’s look at trends from just the alpine/glaciated regions. Given that glaciers and snow cover are furiously melting, what does that tell you about temperature trends?
Ian…”Given that glaciers and snow cover are furiously melting, what does that tell you about temperature trends?”
I don’t agree with ‘furiously melting’, but glaciers have been melting for several thousand years. There was a 400+ year respite while the Little Ice Age froze the planet and since 1850, when it ended, glaciers have began melting again.
I see no proof that a trace gas in responsible for that melting.
As usual, when confronted with his own stupidity, GR deflects and misses the point entirely.
Ian, please stop trolling.
“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
July 28, 2019 at 4:20 AM
this tells us that the Moon is rotating.
but not on its own axis.”
At last I understand.
This is not an argument about physics, it is an argument about semantics.
Not the motion of the Moon, but the meaning of words.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I haven’t had such a good laugh all year.
Yes E-man, that’s why this is so much fun. Clowns STILL can’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on an axis”.
No matter how many examples and explanations we provide, the clowns STILL can’t get it.
It’s as amazing as it is hilarious.
No matter how many times you bring up ponies, cars, or tether balls and declare they are not rotating, we still don’t think the Moon has wheels or legs or ropes attached.
Yet you believe racehorses rotate on their axes and school buses drive upside-down.
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
At lease you’re consistently confused.
The 3 stooges were always funny. This mob are both funny and tragic.
Wrong again, E Man.
entropic…”This is not an argument about physics, it is an argument about semantics”.
It’s actually an argument about comprehension. Since the discussion began, it has been made clear that the rotation in reference was about the Moon and its axis.
No matter how the problem is re-stated, with extended definitions of rotation, the Moon is still not rotating about its axis.
Some people have presumed that the Moon must rotate on its axis during one orbital period since the direction it faces changes through 360 degrees. However, local rotation is not possible since the same face is always pointed at the Earth.
With the same face pointing at the Earth, the far face must always point to space. Meantime, the near face turns in an orbit while the far face turns in a larger, concentric orbit. The axis turns in a medium, concentric orbit.
It is not possible for the near face to turn about the axis which is moving in a larger concentric orbit.
Jumped the ship
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/30/former-award-winning-noaa-scientist-dr-rex-fleming-declares-his-climate-dissent-converted-from-warmist-to-skeptic-explains-why-climate-change-theory-is-bunk/
Just wondering… for those of us arguing that Co2 has very little to no impact on global climate (let’s say less than 10% of the forcing to put a number on it), when did you convert and why?
For me, it was the 2008 financial crisis. My confidence in government / mainstream was shattered by that, so I started to doubt everything and do my own research. I was surprised to find so many differences of opinion on the subject, so I had doubts, but I wasn’t committed to any one side for about 10 years. It wasn’t until hearing about the GSM that I actually decided to check the data myself, which was last October. Since then, it has become a huge part of my life. A bottomless rabbit hole it seems.
“I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost.”
– James Inhofe on AGW, to Rachel Maddow, 3/15/12
Appellcreep instantly reaches for his strawmen folder and attaches completely unrelated idiotic tidbit as some kind of refutal
David Appell,
My question was specifically directed at folks on my side of the argument… ie not you. lol
I have a question for you David… why is it that your side is so full of hypocrites? It is fair to say that 50% of the US population thinks like you do right? Then why is it that only 2% of vehicle sales in the US are electric / hybrid? If we are truly past a tipping point of some kind, we MUST ACT NOW! You and people like you just like to sit there on your high horse and virtue signal everyone that disagrees with you, and then in a perpetual victim status, blame society for not providing you the income to buy expensive electric cars. THEN you blame corporations for selling to the masses what they actually buy. Then a company actually produces a car like the Prius, and nobody wants to buy it because “it is a crap car”. It leaves me wondering… has the world always been so illogical and emotional?
Do you know what illogical and emotional people have in common? They are easy to brainwash and control. That’s exactly what the globalists want. A world full of brainless slaves working their life away with never a single independent thought.
David put his finger on a very relevant idea. +1
“Then a company actually produces a car like the Prius, and nobody wants to buy it because ‘it is a crap car'”
Ouch, I have one of those ‘crap cars’. A plug-in to-boot.
My teenager, put a sticker on it TOTALLY AWESOME PRIUS*
Actually there are about 2 million of them in the US.
* OK the fine print on it ‘Said no one ever’ But he is secretly thrilled with how little gas he has to buy.
nate…”Ouch, I have one of those crap cars. A plug-in to-boot. ”
I hope you have deep pockets when the time comes to change the batteries. Also, pray that the electric sub-system gives you no problems. It won’t be cheap to get those suckers repaired.
Nate I give you props for not being a hypocrite if you are on the AGW side. Honestly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with driving an efficient car for anyone. The reason for having a car is to get from point A to point B. If you don’t need the space, why not save the initial cost and fuel. As far as the battery goes, Gordon Robertson makes a good point about the maintenance costs of all electric / hybrid cars. Once the battery goes, it is highly likely that the car’s value will be less than it costs to put a new battery in. Basically, the equivalent to blowing one’s engine or having a bad transmission. The car might be save-able, but it might not be worth it. So there are hidden costs for driving these cars that many people might not take into account. Anyways, people are free to make their own priorities. I still content if you are on the AGW side and are not driving a hybrid car, or at least a gas-sipper, you are indeed a hypocrite. The claim from the AGW side is after all, if we don’t cut CO2 we will all burn up and die.
Scott,
Yes, most people behave in their self interest rather than the interests of the globe.
That is why if we decide AGW must be dealt with, it will require policy changes that incentivize lower emissions.
For example, in New England, we have a multi-state renewable electricity policy, where the % renewable electricity must increase over time. This is incentivized through renewable energy credits for generating renewable energy, eg by rooftop solar.
A generator must either generate a certain % renewable, or purchase credits from someone else. The credit price is market driven.
Each year the % goes up a bit. Seems to work so far.
Nate,
The problem is these renewables are not as efficient when you look at the whole picture. I think most people realize that E85 for instance, takes more energy to produce than the output. It therefore can never be viable. So why put ethanol in our fuel at all. Because it FEELS like the right thing to do?
Look at battery powered cars. I think most people will agree that a battery powered car costs more than gas. (both initial costs, and maintenance) The rare earth elements have to be mined, and the batteries disposed of. There is an environmental cost that is not being appreciated here if we were to switch on a large scale. Then of course the cherry on top is the fact that most grid power still comes from coal at this time. Basically, we as a society, are trying to put the cart before the horse again because it FEELS like the right thing to do.
What would people say if our electric bills went up 100, 200% in order to switch to renewable energy? You are punishing the poor the most. The rich people can handle it no problem. I think we should be very careful about making sure the science is good before we ask people that are already poor to make more sacrifices. I personally think the vast majority of our temperature departure changes in recorded history have come from ocean currents. If something else is going on, I do not think it is Co2. It MIGHT be the magnetic field, changes in the earths core. Or it could be isostatic rebound altering sea level, raising / lowering land, creating new weather patterns. Or perhaps the linear sea level rise is caused by the 400 year solar cycle directly somehow. I’m open to hear about many ideas, just not Co2. I just see too many up and down temperature changes not lining up with co2 on too many timeframes to think that relationship is that important. It has a small impact I think, but compared to the other forcers it is not important at all.
scott r…”when did you convert and why?”
I have never converted I had simply not been sufficiently aware of the problem.
What started me was the IPCC claim that it is 90% likely humans are causing global warming. It seemed an abuse of a confidence level to make such a claim and I wondered why it had been claimed.
I searched on Google and one of my first hits was Richard Lindzen speaking about the 90% figure. He claimed the majority of reviewers had not claimed a 90% confidence level, many wanted to wait and see what developed.
It was the 50 lead authors who wrote the Summary for Policymakers who claimed the 90% figure then amended the main report to reflect their opinion. That was my fist introduction to the chicanery of the IPCC. Why would any organization use a Summary written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors to amend the main report written by 2500 reviewers?
Further investigation revealed an ever-growing load of pseudo-science.
Ger*an/JDH still doesn’t understand that a body can orbit while rotating about its own polar axis, or orbit without rotating about it. Those two possibilities are animated here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Our Moon’s motion is on the left, rotating as it orbits, tidally locked.
I don’t think JDH is capable of understanding this, which he tries to cover up with insults and name calling. Further discussion is useless.
“Ger*an/JDH still doesn’t understand that a body can orbit while rotating about its own polar axis, or orbit without rotating about it.”
Yet that is precisely what we’ve been trying to explain to you, for several days now, without success. You simply refuse to understand that we define the “orbit without rotating about its axis” motion differently to the way you do, and why we do so.
DA doesn’t understand the relevant physics, so he just resorts to clown tactics–false accusations, misrepresentations, and linking to things he can’t understand.
Did I mention he has no visible means of support?
And right on cue…you prove my point.
That was easy.
David, please stop trolling.
We simply are unable to understand why you feel the need to define ‘orbit without rotating about its axis’ motion differently to the way all astronomers, scientists, and engineers do.
Particularly when it leads you to wrong conclusions.
We simply refuse to unlearn what we know about the physics of rotation, torque and angular momentum, just because you guys refuse to learn it and insist that your feelings and intuitions are more valid than 400 years of physics and astronomy.
Nate, you clowns can sure get tangled up while pounding on your keyboards.
It’s not that hard to understand. A racehorse is NOT rotating on it axis as it orbits the track.
See how easy it is?
If the racehorse isn’t rotating, why doesn’t it always point in the same direction?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369731
Keep up those highly informative rebuttals!
Will do.
Nate says:
We simply are unable to understand why you feel the need to define orbit without rotating about its axis motion differently to the way all astronomers, scientists, and engineers do.
Particularly when it leads you to wrong conclusions.
Exactly.
DREMT is trying to save face by “defining rotation” “differently.”
All while refusing to define “rotation” at all, or specify how to operationally determine if a celestial body is rotating or not.
No, rotation is defined the same way as it’s always been.
If an object rotates (or more specifically, revolves) about a central point, that is separate from the object, the same face of the object is turned towards that central point, throughout. The particles making up the object move in concentric circles about the central point.
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b).
“…the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
The particles making up the moon move in concentric circles, or ellipses, about the Earth-moon barycenter.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yet that is precisely what weve been trying to explain to you, for several days now, without success. You simply refuse to understand that we define the orbit without rotating about its axis motion differently to the way you do, and why we do so.
Define “rotating.”
How, operationally, do you determine if a celestial body is rotating (about its own polar axis) or not?
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Motion represented by the arrows on the left = “CCW orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Motion represented by the arrows on the right = “CCW orbital motion offset by CW axial rotation”.
When you have improved yourself to the level that you can understand that (understand, not necessarily agree), the conversation can continue. This will be repeated until you either stop responding, or demonstrate understanding.
DA…”Those two possibilities are animated here:”
Show me at which point on the LH drawing the dark side closest to the Earth rotates about its (the Moon’s) axis.
Can you not see that the axis is turning on a larger concentric orbit than the dark side? The axis is always on a radial line that travels from the Earth’s centre through the dark spot then through the axis. That means, the axis is always directly behind the dark spot as the Moon moves in its orbit.
How can the dark spot rotate around an axis that is always directly behind it on a larger concentric orbit?
The orbiting motion of the Moon’s polar axis is irrelevant to whether it is internally rotating.
Not one of the nonrotators here can grasp this.
The dark patch spins around the Moon’s polar axis. How is that so difficult to understand?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367599
The last moon post before new data point comes up.
I was thinking , the moon rotates once every 27 days and the nonspinners claim it does not rotate at all , so imagine the moon spin suddenly slows down to rotate every 40 days instead of 27 , the nonspinners would have to claim the moon now actually rotates but in the opposite direction than it actually does. While observer on the moon (or anyone on Earth with a brain)would clearly see the rotation only slowed down.
A new theory of relativity
Remember you heard it from me first when you nominate for the Nobel prizes
Eben, you are making the same basic mistake as the AGW clowns. You can’t differentiate between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. The motions are different and independent. Something can orbit without also rotating on its axis.
Learn some physics. Physics wlll help you understand even better why AGW is a hoax.
Says the clown who gets the definition of translation COMPLETELY wrong, and can’t support his wacked definition with any kinematic reference source. Like I’m surprised………NOT.
Child, grow up, learn some physics, and use your own name.
That will start you on your way to having some credibility.
Says the clown who stole his name from Harry Dale Huffman.
Still waiting on the kinematic reference sources. (will never happen)
Say hello to Fig and Postma. LMAO.
And get some therapy for both your obsession with celebrities, and your paranoid delusions.
stupid…”Says the clown who stole his name from Harry Dale Huffman”.
It would have to be Jarry Dale Huffman. You can’t even get that right.
Poor Gordon. Can never get anything right. Still totally confused about curvilinear translation, and is wrong about Harry Dale Huffman. Always on the losing end:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/#comment-33916.
Ger-Annie was in the above discussion thread, and mentions Huffman. Next thing we know, he shows up on this site as JDHuffman. Not too clever, but that would be expected.
HGS, please stop trolling.
Yes, an object can orbit without rotating on its axis. The Moon isn’t one of them.
Well, there’s only two options, so I guess you must believe that an object orbiting without rotating on its axis moves as per the diagram on the right:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
eben…”the moon rotates once every 27 days and the nonspinners claim it does not rotate at all”
No…we freely admit the Moon rotates around the centre of the Earth in an orbit. Our point is that the Moon is not rotating about its own axis as it orbits.
Draw a line, imaginary or otherwise, from Earth’s centre through the near side of the Moon, through its centre, and out through its far side.
We all agree the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. That means where the radial line just described meets the near face, the point forms an inner orbit. Further along the line is the centre, which must be turning on a larger concentric orbit. Further out still is the far face which is turning on an even larger concentric orbit.
All points along the radial line through the Moon are turning on an infinite series of concentric orbits. It is not possible for particles turning in concentric orbits to cross over each other as would be required if the Moon rotated about its own centre.
The fact that the near face always points at the Earth should tell you conclusively that it is not possible for the Moon to turn about its own axis. It it did, we’d see all sides of the Moon since the Earth rotates 28 times per lunar orbit.
You can only discover and learn the laws of fizzix , but unless you are God you cannot make your own
eben…”You can only discover and learn the laws of fizzix , but unless you are God you cannot make your own”
I don’t understand how you can see through the charade of AGW yet you cannot comprehend a very simply analogy of the actual physics. I’m not making this up, I studied it extensively in engineering at university.
We learned to analyze problems by creating a freebody diagram with the pertinent forces and masses replaced with vectors. I am simply sharing that with you. As a fellow skeptic, please be skeptical of the claim that the Moon rotates on it’s own axis.
I have laid it out very simply for you, that local rotation is impossible with the same face of the Moon always toward the Earth…just look.
Would a fellow skeptic kid you? ☺ Heck, even Nicola Tesla agrees.
I don’t belong to any group or follow any group think , I follow the laws of fizzix.
you are scientifically challenged
Eben, which law of “fizzix” states that a racehorse is rotating on its axis?
Maybe you should try learning “physics”….
eben…”While observer on the moon (or anyone on Earth with a brain)would clearly see the rotation only slowed down”.
Someone with even half a brain could see it has already stopped rotating. That’s what tidally-locked infers.
What is it about ‘locked’ you spinners don’t understand?
The reason and the cause why the moon spins on its axes at the same rate as it orbits around the earth has no relevance to the fact that that it spins.
Your argument only proves you have no basic understanding of the subject
The “Spinners” believe it’s a misnomer. They think it should really be called “tidal freedom of movement”.
“Scott R
July 30, 2019
Just wondering for those of us arguing that Co2 has very little to no impact on global climate (lets say less than 10% of the forcing to put a number on it), when did you convert and why?”
Warming has always been considered good.
I was familiar with Lefties and/or people wanting to make a buck from selling doom- over population, running out resources, etc.
And those saying Earth could become like Venus, were idiots and obviously wrong.
Another aspect is that we are currently living in a Ice Age. And Earth has far higher CO2 levels, before entered our millions of years of our present ice age.
Plus elementary school teaches you humans evolved during this Ice Age.
Or Lucy was living at beginning of the global andbgradual long term cooling.
Of course, they were giving scare stories, about the coming ice age (or glacial period) before they claimed they were all going to fry.
I have always been lukewarmer, but in beginning I thought it was possible that warming could possibly be as much 3 times more than I currently know is possible.
I would think it would be no problem if we could warm 3 times faster than I currently think is possible.
gbaikie according to Dr. Zharkova’s paper “oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale” the warming is natural. It doesn’t make much sense to be in denial of the warming. The earth warms and cools all the time. Prior to 1900, the earths climate was JUST as volatile. Why would it suddenly become stable? I can not support AGW because CO2 only goes in 1 direction – up… and it does so at a faster and faster rate. If that was the most important forcer, you would not see periods of cooling at all. We can look at the UAH record and see wild global temperature departure swings of 1 deg C in 2 years just since 1980. The cause of most of our global temperature change is El Nino. You can say the peaks are getting higher. For instance, in 1998 we peaked at 0.74 before plunging below baseline. Then we peaked at 0.86 in 2016. You can make a legit argument then we warmed by 0.12 degrees C over 18 years. Then subtract from that the warming Zharkova proposed based on the 400 year cycle. At 0.5 deg c per century, that works out to roughly 0.09 deg c warming between 1998 and 2016. Subtract 0.09 deg c from 0.12 and you have 0.03 deg c warming left. The problem for me is AFTER you eliminate El Nino, the 400 year cycle, there is very little temperature departure left to split up between all the rest of the natural and man made forcers. Only 0.03 deg c. You still have the entire Atlantic ocean decadal oscillator, which has a huge impact on the arctic. Then you have heat islands, the PDO. We really should be asking… why aren’t we warmer based on the natural forcers alone? Perhaps the falling TSI has already started cooling us down we just didn’t realize it because it was being offset.
ren’s on vacation, again.
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2019/07/30/minnesota-weather-temperatures-dip-to-37-degrees-in-international-falls-breaking-121-year-record/
JD…”rens on vacation, again.”
JD…please tell us it’s not true….a record cold temperature in mid-summer.
Whatever will mickey mouse say after braying about record warming.
A record cold temperature in mid-summer?
I don’t believe it!
Somebody has fiddled the data. Probably NASA – as you and MF suggested.
DM,
You wrote –
“Somebody has fiddled the data. Probably NASA as you and MF suggested.”
I understand why you choose not to quote me. That is because I never wrote what you imply.
What a fool you are! You might do better if you quote me, and then provide facts to support any disagreement you might have.
Carry on playing the fool. It suits you, as you seem to have natural talent.
Cheers.
mickey…”Somebody has fiddled the data. Probably NASA as you and MF suggested”.
Yeah, the record cold was likely much colder than NOAA/NASA has reported.
Correct Gordon, the tampering continues, as do the cold waves:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/austin/news/2019/07/25/all-time-july-low-temp-record-shattered-on-wednesday
HuffmanGoneStupid wrote –
“I never said the curvilinear translation defintion applies to the moon.”
Unfortunately, he cannot bring himself to say that the definition of “curvilinear motion” applies to the moon either.
As is usual with pseudoscientific GHE true believers, they cannot actually say what it is that they are apparently implying.
HGS has gone on at length about one definition of curvilinear translation, implying that it represents the Moons motion, after I pointed out that the the Moon’s motion seems to be one of straightforward curvilinear motion, similar to an arrow or a ball possessing sufficient velocity to continuously fall towards Earth subject to the force of gravity, but never reach the surface due to the objects forward velocity.
Now HGS may commit himself to the Moon’s mode of motion, or he may not. In the usual sly fashion of pseudoscientific true believers, he refuses to state his beliefs in a form which might allow them to be subjected to scrutiny.
Others may wonder why. I cannot say, as HGS provides no reason for his behaviour. Ignorance, stupidity, mental impairment – I suppose any or all might be involved.
The Moon itself appears to be totally unconcerned about human opinion. The last time I looked, anyway.
Cheers.
Mike…”The Moon itself appears to be totally unconcerned about human opinion. The last time I looked, anyway”.
Each time I see the Moon up there I ask it not to lose any momentum. If it did, and spiraled down into us, who knows where we might end up.
MF,
Let’s get the facts straight, clown.
Please refer to your following comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369127
I provided the correct definition of translation that can be found in any kinematic reference source:
“A translating object does not change orientation and all points on the object have the same velocity.
Your STUPID response was to disagree, and you gave examples of curvilinear motion which did not meet my definition.
YOU confused curvilinear motion with curvilinear translation. You were the clown in all this. YOU were the IDIOT with the mental impairment, dumbass.
Please provide instances where I stated the moon exhibited curvilinear translation. You won’t find any.
HGS,
You wrote –
“MF,
Lets get the facts straight, clown.”, and “Please provide instances where I stated the moon exhibited curvilinear translation.”
The facts seem to be that you are not prepared to commit yourself to admit that the Moon uses one form of motion compared to another., and that you are asking me to justify a stamens I did not make.
You went to some trouble to point out that one definition of curvilinear translation stated –
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.”
I assumed that you were not just quoting random facts, but that you had a reason for doing so. Presumably, that reason had some relationship to the Moon.
If you are now adamant that the Moon does not, in fact, exhibit curvilinear translation as it orbits the Earth, I cannot see why are complaining that I am a “clown”, as this is what I have been saying all along.
I agree. Do you now agree that the Moon follows its path in the same manner as, say, an arrow, where it remains aligned with its orbital path, and every line in the body does not remain parallel to its original position? I am of course aware of the differences in definition.
For example, from Merriam-Webster –
“Definition of curvilinear motion
: motion in which the direction of the velocity of a body is variable and the path of the body is a curved line”
You spent a lot of time trying to say that translation motion was a subset of curvilinear motion, apparently for no reason at all, as you now acknowledge that curvilinear motion as defined by Merriam-Webster represents the motion of the Moon adequately. Why bother with pushing a particular and completely pointless instance of curvilinear motion – curvilinear translation?
Carry on erecting and demolishing straw men. By now, I am sure you have totally forgotten the point you were trying to make. What were you trying to say, again?
Cheers.
MF,
Listen, you moron.
I stated this standard definition of translation:
“A translating object does not change orientation and all points on the object have the same velocity.”
You immediately said:
“Well, no”. You were completely wrong. A translating object (both curvilinear and rectilinear) does not change orientation And all points on the translating object DO have the same velocity.
And then you rambled on about curvilinear motion, confusing it with curvilinear translation.
You embarrassed yourself, and now you are droning on and on, trying to cover for your ignorance, asking really stupid questions.
And now you can’t figure out the importance of the concept of translation. Read my comments and you will learn something.
HGS,
If you are now saying that your comment had nothing to do with the Moon’s motion, and was just a random attempt at confusion and diversion, then I apologise for assuming otherwise.
Others may determine for themselves whether providing a definition for something quite irrelevant to the Moon’s motion is useful or not.
My comment “Well, no” related to anybody who might inadvertently think that the Moon’s motion was an example of curvilinear translation. By all means, toss in a few more irrelevant and pointless definitions, if you wish. There are many available on the Internet, in books, and so on.
You can make some up, if you run out. Pseudoscientific GHE true believers redefine slow cooling to mean heating, for example.
Off you go, then. See how completely irrelevant and pointless you can be. If all fails, you could try resorting to childish attempts to be gratuitously offensive. Let me know if you need any assistance.
Cheers.
Child-Gone-Stupid is in meltdown because he can’t have his way.
And, to make things worse for the youngster, he rides to school believing his bus is upside-down.
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
MF,
You are obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed. I will not embarrass you any further.
Hey JD,
I am still waiting on the reference source for your wacked instananeaous translation definition. Is that forthcoming any time soon?
I already know the answer. As the clown MF would say, “Well, no.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369637
“…so you move on from kinematic descriptions:”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369548
Nate wrote –
“Newtons not helping my team right now.
Time to take trash his rep. He wasnt all that bright..
MF mustve watched the Mueller hearings.”
Stringing meaningless words together changes physical fact not one whit.
No GHE. CO2 heats nothing. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer hotter.
Are the Mueller hearings relevant? Who or what is a Mueller?
Cheers.
Mike…”Who or what is a Mueller?”
A Mueller is a special prosecutor the whining Democrats pinned their hopes on. After fabricating a horrendous story of Russians causing them to lose the last election, Mueller was appointed to investigate.
Essentially, he found nothing untoward but like a typical McCarthyist he far out-reached his mandate to prosecute for the sake of prosecuting, as all good prosecutors are prone to do.
I am happy to say he did not prove the GHE or that CO2 heats anything.
All he has managed to do is waste two years of taxpayers money and time. The Dems are now lead by 4 people from third world countries who hate the US and its way of life. One is a Muslim, go figure.
GR,
Many thanks. Just another pointless diversion from a pseudoscientific GHE true believer, it seems. Why am I not surprised?
Cheers.
Conservative, racist, sexist, ageist, ignorant old men who will be soon forgotten.
Euthanasia never looked so tempting!
Just another pointless diversion from a pseudoscientific GHE true believer, it seems. Why am I not surprised?
I support your desire to remove yourself from the gene pool. When do you intend to utilise euthanasia for yourself?
Cheers.
mickey…”Euthanasia never looked so tempting!”
Surely you are not hoping to be euthanized?
There. there…it’s not that hopeless. Yes, your pet theories have been disproved and you may feel somewhat depressed, but needing to be euthanized is somewhat extreme.
“Euthanasia is the termination of a very sick person’s life in order to relieve them of their suffering. A person who undergoes euthanasia usually has an incurable condition.”
I am here to help if needed, but prefer treatment with electrodes.
pP,
Myki is apparently desirous of euthanasia.
Unfortunately, this would require the services of a qualified person or two. A psychobababling fool, fraud or faker would likely be unsuitable, unless Myki wanted to die from a fit of uncontrollable laughter.
Are you volunteering to render this service?
Cheers.
I think you all need zapping!
professor P, please stop trolling.
FYI Here is a nice orbit simulator.
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html
Double click on MODEL.
At Right select Earth and Moon.
Hit run.
You see Moon orbiting Earth as it does with same face to Earth.
An interesting thing to do while it is running is Turn Gravity OFF.
Of course the MOON flies off.
But as it flies off, does it rotate on its axis?
Try it.
It rotated on its axis just fine , but flew off now I can’t get it back
eben…hit Pause…the double line icon || …then hit the reverse icon |<< to reset it.
N,
Oh goody! Another simulation! No doubt replete with brightly coloured pictures, and based on physical nonsense – just like the GHE based climate models.
Not worth a cracker, if the depiction does not accord with known physical outcomes. Would you believe a computer graphic showing perpetual motion of a continuously overbalancing wheel? Silly question – of course you would!
As to your instruction to try it, I don’t believe I will, just now. Why should I waste even a second of my time at your behest?
If you choose to pay my normal per diem fee, I will supply a computer program which will have the Moon doing whatever you want. You can’t afford me, I suspect.
Still no GHE. No CO2 heat production. Boo hoo. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
‘Not worth a cracker, if the depiction does not accord with known physical outcomes.’
I think you mean ‘Know physical laws’. Outcome is disputed.
N,
You may think anything you wish, of course.
One definition of an outcome is a “a consequence.”. You stated a certain thing would happen as a consequence of a certain action. I used “outcomes” advisedly. Dispute away.
Your silly simulator is not worth a cracker (or a brass razoo, if you prefer).
Still no GHE. CO2 creates no heat at all. Any disputation there?
Cheers.
nate…”FYI Here is a nice orbit simulator.”
Yeah…nifty.
Turn on all the check boxes like Gravity force, velocity, path (orbit) and grid. Then turn up the magnification at top left to full +.
Turn on slo-mo as you approach 12 o’clock then stop the motion at 12 o’clock. With all vectors turned on you can see the relationship between the Moon’s velocity and Earth’s gravity, resulting in the orbit.
Click forward briefly and stop. Repeat, watching how the vectors change position, carving out the orbit.
Note the dark mass on Moon (total magnification) nearest to Earth with the blue force vector right through it to the centre of the Moon. As the Moon orbits, the vector always points to the Earth and it runs from the Moon centre, through the dark spot to outside the Moon.
All points on the Moon along that vector are turning in concentric orbits, including the axis (centre). At no time during the orbit is the dark spot turning around the axis. If it did, there would be a very apparent 360 degree rotation around the axis and the full view of the Moon’s surface would be available from the Earth.
As to whether the Moon would rotate after gravity is turned off and it veers off in a straight line, it would depend on whether the tiny torque applied to the Moon by gravity at that point had an effect. I think the mass of the Moon would override it and the Moon would fly off without rotating about its axis.
I was playing with the mass of the Moon and the mass of the Earth. If you put Earth’s mass on lowest setting with the Moon at its normal mass, you get a good parabolic/hyperbolic exit from orbit.
Wrong again.
A simple test I tried proves it.
Grab some irregular object (such as a mobile phone) and hold it in your hand with one end pointing at the ceiling.
Move your hand in a horizontal circular motion keeping the phone in the exact same orientation. You can see that It definitely does not rotate on its axis. Fine.
But, now repeat the motion and but try and keep one face of the object pointed towards the centre of the circular motion (like the moon always facing the Earth). You can only do it easily by using your other hand since the object has to rotate – just like the moon!
Therefore the moon rotates on its axis.
pP,
I must be missing something here.
You wrote –
“Move your hand in a horizontal circular motion keeping the phone in the exact same orientation. You can see that It definitely does not rotate on its axis. Fine.”
As you do that, with one end pointing at the ceiling, is not one face facing your eyes at all times? I am assuming you are occupying the centre of of the circle around which your arm is moving the phone.
The same as the Moon orbiting the Earth, the phone is orbiting your head. No need for another hand, as I see it. Just in case others might see things as I do, maybe you could explain what you mean a little more clearly.
Cheers.
“As you do that, with one end pointing at the ceiling, is not one face facing your eyes at all times?”
No. Move your hand in front of your face – like you were swishing a glass of beer. One end of the phone always points towards the ceiling while each face/side always points to the same four walls/(points of the compass). i.e. it does not rotate with respect to the room.
Nice, simple experiment eh?
PP,
You wrote –
“Move your hand in front of your face like you were swishing a glass of beer.”
Why would I do that? The force controlling the Moon comes from within its orbit – not from outside.
Your nice, simple experiment is just more delusional pseudoscientific claptrap.
Nothing to do with a body orbiting another, held in orbit by gravity.
Try again – use physics.
Cheers.
pp does not understand orbital motion.
He does not understand his hand/arm is “forcing” the object. He is forcing the object to move in a circular path, without rotating on it axis. In a celestial body, the forces are different.
He needs to study orbital motion, which requires learning some physics.
That won’t happen….
PP, this brain-dead pair still don’t get it.
Notice how they always deflect when confronted with unpalatable facts.
“Turn on all the check boxes like Gravity force, velocity, path (orbit) and grid. Then turn up the magnification at top left to full +.
Turn on slo-mo as you approach 12 o’clock then stop the motion at 12 o’clock. With all vectors turned on you can see the relationship between the Moon’s velocity and Earth’s gravity, resulting in the orbit.
Click forward briefly and stop. Repeat, watching how the vectors change position, carving out the orbit.”
The simulator shows that relationship even more clearly than the animations here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
That will correct all the people who claim that the cannonball could be moving like the arrows on the right, in the below:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
So explain why the Moon is rotating on its axis as it flies off?
The film run backwards shows that a Moon entering orbit would have to have been initially rotating on its axis.
Oh well, better luck next time!
Moon would NOT be rotating on its axis. That part of the simulation is WRONG.
That’s the trouble with not knowing physics. You find links that support your beliefs, not understanding the links are not always valid.
Nothing new.
‘That part of the simulation is WRONG.’
As expected…
You guys are happy with all other parts of the simulation. The force and velocity vectors look right, the orbit looks right, it does what you expect when masses change.
But when one thing doesnt agree with your expactation/belief, its cuz THEY DID IT WRONG!
Pathetic.
But please do tell us what they did wrong.
We’ve told you before. Moon has NO angular momentum about it’s center of gravity.
For those that can’t understand orbital motion, the racehorse is a useful model. It is “orbiting” around the track, but NOT rotating on its axis.
‘Weve told you before.’
And the value of that is what?
No evidence, no logic, no credit.
Agreed Nate, there appears to be little value in telling you. You have been unable to understand even the simplest concepts.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman says:
For those that cant understand orbital motion, the racehorse is a useful model. It is orbiting around the track, but NOT rotating on its axis.
If the horse wasn’t rotating, it would always point in the same direction (by definition).
It doesn’t.
DA, you can’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on an axis”. That’s justifiable, since you don’t know the relevant physics.
But, if you claim to be a “writer”, shouldn’t you understand “subjuctive mood”?
“If the horse wasn’t rotating”, should be “If the horse weren’t rotating”.
Grow up, learn some grammar, then learn some physics.
You don’t want people to think you’re just a pompous, uneducated clown, do you?
‘it would depend on whether the tiny torque applied to the Moon by gravity at that point had an effect. ‘
No such torque.
“I think the mass of the Moon would override it and the Moon would fly off without rotating about its axis.”
As you can clearly see, it doesn’t.
“As to whether the Moon would rotate after gravity is turned off and it veers off in a straight line, it would depend on whether the tiny torque applied to the Moon by gravity at that point had an effect.”
Not sure what torque you think gravity is applying here Gordon? Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier explanations but I always assumed you were not arguing that gravity could exert a torque about the moon’s own axis.
In any case I think the relationship between Earth’s gravity and the moon’s momentum, and how that produces “orbital motion” is made even clearer using the simulator.
This might help, too:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#/media/File%3ATorque_animation.gif
Good, gravity applies no torque.
Thus that fact that the Moon quite obviously does continue to rotate after flying off in a straight line must be perplexing…
No explanations forthcoming?
“This might help, too:”
I should just add that it mainly helps with the “Newton’s Cannonball” gifs, although now it should be clearer how that ties in with the simulator output anyway…
…the cannon supplies the force (F) producing the momentum (p), which as you can see from the Angular momentum link produces a torque at the central point that the ball is rotating around (so not at the axis of the ball itself), and from there you get your angular momentum (L). Which would be “orbital” angular momentum only, not angular momentum about the ball’s own axis.
‘Which would be ‘orbital’ angular momentum only, not angular momentum about the balls own axis.’
Exactly. No spin angular momentum is obtained from the cannon, or by gravity, only orbital ang momentum, mvr.
Ang momentum is conserved by gravity.
However the Moon, as it flies off spinning around its axis has orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum.
Therefore, while in orbit it has the same amount of orb ang momentum and spin angular momentum.
Nate, you just pound on your poor keyboard, hoping something lucid will emerge.
This is just another example that your energies are wasted.
JD, I understand this sciency stuff is well over your head. Dont worry about it.
“Which would be “orbital” angular momentum only, not angular momentum about the ball’s own axis.”
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the ““orbital” angular momentum only, not angular momentum about the ball’s own axis” motion is as per the motion of the moon. You only have to briefly look at the Angular momentum link to see that, so it should really go without saying, but you can’t be too careful these days.
G, “All points on the Moon along that vector are turning in concentric orbits, including the axis (centre). ”
Yes, and that means the outermost points are moving faster, and the innermost points slower.
At the top of the orbit the velocity vectors look like
<——- top
<—–center
<—bottom
exaggerated.
This can explain why, when gravity is turned off, the Moon keeps spinning on its axis.
Velocities in a frame of reference moving with the CM, are V -Vcm, and look like this:
bottom
That implies rotation, which is what we see.
Arrggh,
Look like this:
bottom
weird, arrows not showing up.
Point is
Top velocity vector to the left
Center no arrow (0 velocity)
Bottom velocity vector to the right
Nate you are confusing “angular” velocity with “linear” velocity. All points on Moon have the same linear velocity. You are confused by “angular”, because it is relative to something other than center of mass.
Learn some physics.
JD,
Is that linear velocity relative to a fixed frame of reference or to a rotating reference frame?
Just wondering if you are a rotating clown or a fixed clown.
JDHuffman says:
All points on Moon have the same linear velocity.
{laughing}
You are *really* lost on all this.
See why you are a clown, DA?
JD,
You are the clown, that’s why David is laughing at you.
Because all points on the moon are not moving at the same linear velocity.
Study some “orbital motion” and see if you can figure it out.
Not likely though
bob and DA, if I show you the math, will you both agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days?
JD,
Yes, If and only if there are no errors in the math.
If there are errors in the math, I can guarantee that I will find them, and I will continue to post.
I have had a decent math education and have decent math skills, so bring it.
So JD,
Are you going to show me your math?
Or are you bluffing?
All Hat and no cattle are you?
P.S: if anyone were to be interested in whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis if gravity were somehow “switched off”, a good place to discuss that would be on this sub-thread, following this comment, and after having read the linked papers:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369591
‘having read the linked papers’
If they have any important facts or logic beyond what has already been discussed, pls summarize them here.
Anyone who wants can then go check it in the papers.
Climate shystering 101
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CQLBGz8LxU
If our 1970s probes had found that Mars had a breathable atmosphere and water, I think we would have landed people there, on a one-way trip, 30 years ago. 30 years! A one way trip is doable then and today—it is the living there and the return trip that isn’t anywhere close to feasible yet.
As for the moon, the Apollo program was truly awesome and amazing, and I think important and meaningful. But to put a full-time base on the moon (or to send people to mars rather than rovers) seems so incredibly difficult and risky and expensive as to be a giant waste of energy and money (at least with current technology).
Neat article though!
cm…” But to put a full-time base on the moon (or to send people to mars rather than rovers) seems so incredibly difficult and risky and expensive….”
The only justification I can see, given your parameters, is a means of getting people off the planet to avoid an impending disaster.
It would only take a medium sized asteroid colliding with the Earth to decimate the population. If we could see it coming and we had the means to evacuate we may be able to save life as we know it.
As it stands, we are burying our heads in the sand, as did the UK, Europe, and the US post WWI. All Allied nations dumped their armaments as being too expensive to maintain, and when WWII broke out they were left totally unprepared.
We have plenty of money for space exploration if we direct funds away from useless enterprise. No one needs to have billions of dollars of assets and companies who supply space missions have to be forced to keep their profits down. As it stands, they are royally ripping off the space projects with sub-par products.
Look at the Challenger disaster, it came down to a gasket which the supplier had not tested adequately. The supplier should have been jailed for life, it was criminal negligence of the highest order.
“If we could see it coming and we had the means to evacuate we may be able to save life as we know it.”
What would be the point? Look at how stupid people are. Look at how we decimate other species. Look at the pollution we cause. Why should we evacuate simply to repeat our mistakes elsewhere?
I say, save the money and try and cure our man-made problems rather than waste it on space exploration. That fake moon landing was a con-job to persuade the government to spend more. Just like global warming.
“The supplier should have been jailed for life, it was criminal negligence of the highest order.”
There were memos proving that NASA management had been warned. The O-rings were not designed for temperatures below freezing. NASA management was under pressure, as the launch date had already been postponed several times. They made the disastrous decision to launch, disregarding the advice from engineering. As usual, their agenda was more important than reality.
Wrong Gordon. (As always.) The problem was the temperature was too low for the O-right to do its job. A few engineers at Morton Thiokol
were very concerned about this the night before launch, but their upper management overrode them.
DA…”The problem was the temperature was too low for the O-right to do its job”.
Full of crap, as usual, DA.
Feynman found the problem by dipping an o-ring piece into a styrofoam cup of water and ice. Even at such a high temperature compared to what one might expect from liquid oxygen, the O-ring was brittle and cracked easily.
This was an engineering gaffe of the highest order and probably exacerbated by a supplier trying to milk NASA by supplying inferior products.
In any other country where capitalism is not God, the suppliers would have been in jail for a long time.
“This was an engineering gaffe of the highest order…..”
I suspect GR and MF may have been involved as engineers.
Ian, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
“As to whether the Moon would rotate after gravity is turned off and it veers off in a straight line, it would depend on whether the tiny torque applied to the Moon by gravity at that point had an effect. I think the mass of the Moon would override it and the Moon would fly off without rotating about its axis”
The hammer throw is similar to the moon’s behaviour on a smaller scale. During the turn phase the weight points towards the thrower. When released it flies off at a tangent.
If you watch slow motion video of a hammer throw you will see that the weight continues to rotate after release.
The Moon would do the same. It rotates relative to the Sun and the fixed stars and would continue that rotation if Earth instantly disappeared. Anything else would require an instant removal of the Moon’s angular momentum in violation of 2LOT.
Search “Hammer throw in perfect form” on Youtube.
The throw was filmed at night. You can watch the hammer’s path and its rotation against the dark sky.
If you get menlord’s version which cuts off early, try the longer version on Redditt.
entropic…here’s abetter one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=6WooCZNY6pE
If you stop the vid at the moment of release, you can see the ball is moving straight down the range based on its subsequent path. However, at release, the chain is almost perpendicular to the ball.
As the ball moves forward in a tangential direction, you can see it pulling the chain behind it. As the chain tries to line up behind the ball it overshoots, due to its momentum, and causes the ball to turn.
The ball does not turn on its own till the chain starts to swing past the line of trajectory.
Note that the chain turns about 3/4 turn before the ball hits then it is dragged by the ball again.
That’s not right, E-man. A released hammer has some small angular momentum due to its tether. If it were released without its tether, it would fly straight, without rotating.
And if Earth’s gravity were suddenly switched off, Moon would fly off without rotating. Moon’s angular momentum, relative to Earth, would be conserved as linear momentum. There is no violation of 2LoT.
‘ If it were released without its tether, it would fly straight, without rotating.’
Why?
“And if Earths gravity were suddenly switched off, Moon would fly off without rotating.”
Nope. As you could plainly see in the simulator, it flies off and continues to rotate.
Does evidence right in front of your nose matter?
Apparently not.
The simulation is wrong it that respect, Nate.
Learn some physics.
Wrong how?
“…that respect…”
Assertion without evidence.
Reality is a bitch sometimes..
“Reality” is the name of the racehorse, Nate.
But be careful, she can be deadly….
Awww cute name for your My Little Pony..
Em,
Not really equivalent to the Moon.
“It is important to note that the cable force itself is not equal to the centripetal force. The cable force consists of three components; normal, radial, and tangential to the instantaneous circle of rotation.”
Tangential force results in rotation of the hammer, and reduces the amount of energy available for maximum distance.
Only one force is necessary to maintain the Moons motion – the force of gravity.
Over to you.
Cheers.
“The hammer throw is similar to the moon’s behaviour on a smaller scale. During the turn phase the weight points towards the thrower. When released it flies off at a tangent.
If you watch slow motion video of a hammer throw you will see that the weight continues to rotate after release.”
There’s plenty of discussion on this general subject in these two papers:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
Give them a try, E Man.
A last word concerning Moon’s rotation about its axis
Last year, I presented work made by Lagrange and Laplace on the basis of observations by Cassini, Mayer, Mercator and theoretical work made by… Sir Isaac Newton.
All that was discredited and denigrated by the usual denialist crew, who pretended that Newton never did write anything the like.
Now everybody can see Newton’s original text in Latin
https://tinyurl.com/yytuurr9
as well as the first original translation in Old English by Andrew Motte:
https://tinyurl.com/y3q9ebvr
The two differ a bit here and there, probably dur to the fact that Newton had some wishes for tiny modifications a the time Motte started his work. Nothing wrong with that!
There is also a translation of Newton’s Principia in modern English:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846)
*
Huffman pretended upthread :
“Newton got it right. Cassini got it wrong.
But, you should like Cassini, he was into astrology.”
If Cassini had ever been ” into astrology”, Newton never would have wrote even one word about Cassini’s observations in his Principia, together with those of e.g. Flamsted, Townley, Marius and Galileo.
Yes, Huffman, Newton got it right, see the texts accessible from the links above.
But at the same time, you pretend that Newton got it wrong, see your racehorse toy stories.
*
I wish much pleasure and success in denying. The circus will never end. Denialism is an incurable mental disease.
Feel free to call me a clown, a blithering idiot, stupid and ignorant, etc etc.
No problem for me!
Bindidon, whether due to incompetence or dishonesty, attempts to “bind” reality:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369059
“A last word concerning Moon’s rotation about its axis”
I wonder what the odds are of this actually being Bindidon’s “last word” on the subject?
☺
Sorry, no trick unraveled here, as you both perfectly know.
All observations, computations anf therories formulated by Newton were done with respect to the fixed stars.
Valid for the Sun, all planets and their satellites. Look at ALL the texts.
Now it’s really enough.
Bind finally admits his chicanery.
He had been trying to claim Newton’s quotes meant something other then what they said.
He admitted it, after he got caught, but it sure took him a long time….
According to Newton (in his Principia):
– Sun rotates about its axis in 25 days wrt the fixed stars;
– Saturn rotates about its axis in 9 hours 56 min. wrt the fixed stars;
– Mars rotates about its axis in 24 hours 39 min. wrt the fixed stars;
– Venus rotates about its axis in 23 hours wrt the fixed stars;
– Earth rotates about its axis in 23 hours 56 min wrt the fixed stars;
and
– Moon rotates about its axis in 27 days 7 hours 43 min. wrt the fixed stars.
binny…”According to Newton (in his Principia):
Moon rotates about its axis in 27 days 7 hours 43 min. wrt the fixed stars”.
**********
If that’s what Newton said then Newton was wrong. Tesla proved him wrong.
The sad part is that given evidence to the contrary you are too stupid to debate the evidence, you run off and appeal to authority just as you do with NOAA and their GHCN lies.
Have you no ability to consider evidence put to you directly and debate that evidence?
So…sidereal time.
… valid for Sun, Saturn, Mars, Venus, Earth, and… Moon.
What’s your point?
Do you still not understand why Newton takes the fixed stars as reference for all his calculations, regardless the celestial object he observes?
This is Bindidon’s THIRD “last word”.
Maybe he meant to add “plus or minus” 1000?
Yes, so many “last words”!
https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/lunar_sid_syn.html
“The Moon’s sidereal orbital period (the sidereal month) is ~27.3 days; this is the time interval that the Moon takes to orbit 360 around the Earth relative to the “fixed” stars.”
Nothing to do with the moon rotating on its own axis! Shame.
He said nothing about the Moon’s internal rotation. That doesn’t mean he said the Moon doesn’t rotate.
(Logic 101)
It’s “on its own axis”, David. You’ll get there.
The words “on its own axis” do not appear anywhere in your quote:
The Moons sidereal orbital period (the sidereal month) is ~27.3 days; this is the time interval that the Moon takes to orbit 360 around the Earth relative to the fixed stars.
Nor do those words appear anywhere on your page
https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/lunar_sid_syn.html
Again you’re just making things up.
“The words “on its own axis” do not appear anywhere in your quote”
Exactly. Nor anywhere on the page. You’re going to get there, I just know you will.
Yes it should have been time since a few days for me to leave this ridiculous discussion.
Again, I ask you wether or not you agree to
– Newton’s original Principia text in Latin (PROPOSITIO XVII. THEOREMA XV. ), in which he refers to the rotation of various celestial bodies about their axis, including the Moon,
and
– the text’s translation into English.
A. Latin
Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, & librationem lunae ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.
Patet per motus legem 1. & Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Lib. I.
Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, mars horis 24. 39′, venus horis 23 circiter, terra horis 23. 56′, sol diebus 25 & luna diebus 27. 7 hor. 43′ .
Haec ita se habere ex phaenomenis manifestum est.
Maculae in corpore solis ad eundem situm in disco solis redeunt diebus 27 circiter, respectu terrae ; ideoque respectu fixarum sol revolvitur diebus 25 circiter.
Quoniam vero lunae circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est: huius facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis eius semper respiciet quamproxime & propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviab it hinc inde a terra.
*
B. English
The diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I.
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
These things appear by the Phaenomena.
The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 days.
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
You can’t say
– ‘Newton got it right’
AND
– the Moon does not rotate about its axis.
It is in his own text.
*
What does the text at the link
https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/lunar_sid_syn.html
have to do with wether or not the Moon rotates about is axis?
NOTHING.
Maybe you ask John Lucey what he means concerning this question?
It has to do with the moon’s sidereal orbital period of ~27.3 days, which as you can see from the link has nothing to do with whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not.
That’s right! The sidereal orbital motion of the Moon has nothing to do with the internal rotation state of the Moon.
They are independent motions.
But sometimes they’re brought to be the same by tidal locking.
“The sidereal orbital motion of the Moon has nothing to do with the internal rotation state of the Moon.”
Right. So Bindidon’s “Newton quotes” did not prove what he wanted them to. So you support my point.
Try not to forget the context of the discussion you’ve rudely jumped into, David.
How you can get tired by denialists intentionally misrepresenting what you post
*
From Newton’s Principia, I paste two ‘snippet’s (the entire rest can be seen above in two languages)
1. The diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I.
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
*
2. But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb…
*
When you post that, you think everybody will understand what Newton tells us, namely that
– Moon’s daily motion about its axis is equal in time to its orbiting around Earth,
and that therefore,
– posting as answer a link like
https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/lunar_sid_syn.html
does not contribute at all to the discussion, as the linked page only considers the orbiting point, and does not tell anything about Newton’s ‘rotating about its own axis’.
But… then comes the Planet’s greatest Journalarmist Dr Appell, and feels free to disturb the discussion with a ridiculous, naive comment, of course immediately ‘misunderstood’:
Thats right! The sidereal orbital motion of the Moon has nothing to do with the internal rotation state of the Moon.
Inevitable consequence: the denialist immediately jumps into the opportunity, and writes:
Right. So Bindidons Newton quotes did not prove what he wanted them to. So you support my point.
*
Terrifying.
The best is that such people write “Newton’s quotes” in quotes, as if they tried to insinuate I wouldn’t quote Newton correctly.
*
Like the ‘upper focus’ and the ‘barycentre’ pseudoarguments, the link to John Lucey’s page is a non-sequitur as well.
*
Read Newton! More you don’t need.
The “last words” continue…
Frank Zappa: ‘The torture never stops’
Well that’s a bit much. You don’t understand other people’s arguments on the moon issue, so you ignore them and just make a repeated appeal to authority, whilst also ignoring people’s patient attempts to explain why they disagree with your interpretation of Newton’s words, in any case…and you do so with constant aggression, belligerence and condescending arrogance (all things you falsely accuse others of on a regular basis)…but I wouldn’t say your comments are torture.
Just a bit pompous, and relentless.
binny….”All observations, computations anf therories formulated by Newton were done with respect to the fixed stars”.
Even wrt the fixed stars, the Moon does not rotate about its axis. We know the same side always points to the Earth. That means points on the same side are in a circular orbit.
Points behind the near face are also on circular and larger concentric orbits INCLUDING THE AXIAL CENTRE POINT.
For rotation about the lunar axis, all points would have to be turning in 360 degree circles around the axis at the same time. That includes the near side which would have to rotate 360 degrees about the axis, exposing the entire lunar surface to the Earth.
The near face and all points behind it are on a rotating radial line from the Earth’s centre. THEY CANNOT TURN AROUND THE CENTRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gordon: Here is an arbitrary body out in space:
O
How do you determine if it is rotating or not?
Jesus what a poorish blah blah.
Read Newton, Robertson.
binny…”Last year, I presented work made by Lagrange and Laplace on the basis of observations by Cassini, Mayer, Mercator and theoretical work made by Sir Isaac Newton”.
You have presented a well documented appeal to authority while absolutely refusing to debate convincing evidence to the contrary presented to you.
I don’t think Newton was lacking the observational power to immediately see what scientists like Tesla saw. I think the translation from Latin has been so poor that the translator used the word rotation out of context.
Most of the quotes you presented were related to libration and LaGrange points, not rotation.
Robertson
” I think the translation from Latin has been so poor that the translator used the word rotation out of context.”
And such a brainless guy names me a ‘blithering idiot’. Jesus!
Newton and Andrew Motte, his first translator from Latin into Olde English, were contemporary persons!
Sorry non-spinners.
The orbit simulator clearly shows that when you turn off Earths gravity, the Moon flies off spinning around its own axis.
Unless you can come up with a sensible way for the act of turning off gravity to apply a massive torque and cause the Moon to suddenly obtain spin (and spin angular momentum), then it is clear that the Moon was spinning on its axis while in orbit.
There is just no other way around it.
Better luck on the next issue.
Nate, you clowns are all the same.
Every time one of you gets a new idea, or finds a new website, you believe you have “proved” the moon rotates on its axis!
Every time.
And, when someone shows you how wrong you are, you get mad. It’s like it’s their fault you are so uneducated.
No wonder I have so much fun here….
Your latest link is a fun video game. You have learned how to play it, so you believe you are a physics expert. They have incorrectly programmed Moon to be rotating if gravity is turned off, so you believe that is accurate. You believe anything that supports your false religion.
If you understood orbital motion, you could change some of the settings and find several things wrong. But, of course you can’t do that.
Have fun playing with your video game….
Notice you didn’t address any of Nate’s arguments, you just did more insults and name calling, as you always do.
DA, there were no insults. The term “clown” is factual. If facts insult people, that’s not my problem. If you’re trying to be the “insult” policeman, you need to clean up your act first. Clowns don’t make very good policemen.
Nate’s arguments have been addressed, and addressed, and addressed. You live in denial. When you’re not avoiding physics, you’re avoiding reality.
You believe a racehorse rotates on its axis. The reason you cling to such nonsense is because you cling to Institutionalized Pseudoscience. It’s your false religion.
Nothing new.
You have yet to provide one fact.
Just, as here, more declarations, more insults, more name calling. That’s all you ever have.
You’re the most meaningless commenter on here.
DA, do your words mean anything. Do you have any integrity at all?
If I take the time to link to the facts I have shared, will you agree to not comment on this blog for one week for each link?
Put up or shut up, as they say.
What links??
Put up or shutup.
I didn’t think you had any links.
Good lord you are so continually vapid.
JD’s point is obviously that if you agree to the terms, he will supply the links. Really not that hard to follow, David.
JD, you must feel its pretty compelling evidence.
Thus you need to declare that it must be wrong!
But, with no clue what is wrong, nor any evidence whatsover, it is just hope and prayer.
By now it’s clear JDH has no evidence or reasoning. That’s why he resorts to declarations, insults and name calling — they’re covers.
Nate, the evidence involves physics, so that leaves you and DA out.
But you should be able to understand a simple racehorse. This leaves DA out again, as from his comment down thread, he doesn’t even understand how a racehorse runs.
Suppose the programmer had the racehorse orbiting the track. Suddenly the horse jumped the perimeter fence and ran in a straight line. Would the programmer have the horse rotating on its axis, as it ran the straight line? To be consistent with your pseudoscience, the horse would have to be rotating on its axis, “to conserve angular momentum”!
Learn some physics, don’t be like DA.
Yet again, more assertions, no facts.
Now, besides a horse that can’t easily run sideways, there is a programmer telling (?) the horse what to think? What to do?
Can a horse run sideways?
DA, are you running away?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369740
If you can paste a link, you can paste words.
JD,
Let me add to what DA said:
Moons have no legs.
Nor do Moons have free will to choose to rotate or not.
Pointless analogy.
David, did you try reading the papers linked to here?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369591
What does Tesla say right at the end of the first paper linked to?
Who landed more spacecraft on the Moon, Tesla or NASA?
Who has killed more astronauts, Tesla or NASA?
A typical useless answer intended to evade the point.
I’ll quote it for you if you’re too lazy, David:
“If it be bisected by a plane tangential to the orbit, the masses of the two halves are inversely as the distances of their centers of gravity from the earth’s center and, therefore, if the latter were to disappear suddenly, no axial rotation, as in the case of a weight thrown off, would ensue.”
Do you think the programmers of the orbit simulator had the two halves of the moon be of equal mass, or different masses?
Tesla was wrong. As NASA knows. NASA had to land on and lift off from the Moon. Obviously the Moon’s rate of internal rotation would be a key parameter in their calculations, just as is the internal rotation rate of the Earth.
David, now be honest: do you even have the slightest idea of the point being made?
Do you think the programmers of the orbit simulator had the two halves of the moon be of equal mass, or different masses?
I don’t know, but in fact two halves of the Moon *are* of different masses, not matter how you slice it.
That’s one reason why the Moon cannot not rotate — it has a net torque on it from an uneven mass distribution.
NASA:
“Misconception
“The Moon does not rotate.
“Reality
“The Moon does spin on its axis, completing a rotation once every 27.3 days; the confusion is caused because it also takes the same period to orbit the Earth, so that it keeps the same side facing us.”
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/
Well that sounds like you are in total agreement with Tesla, David.
Well, the middle sentence of your 6:31 PM comment, anyway.
As usual you try to play coy and refuse to explain yourself, but I don’t know what you mean.
NASA knows the Moon rotates.
Testa, who never went to the Moon, was wrong.
You don’t understand because you don’t really follow the discussions, David. You just show up and “do a David” all over the blog.
You smear up, then you smear back down. Back up, and back down, until you get bored. You don’t pay attention to context as you don’t bother to read what has been happening. You just scan through the comments, see a keyword that triggers one of your stock responses, and off you go.
What have I missed?
If you want to be understood, you’ll have to make you arguments without expecting everyone else go to back and read 20 of your links.
Because no one is going to do that. You just aren’t that special.
But it’s more that it’s difficult to take you seriously, because you’re wrong. So there’s not a lot of incentive to go back and sort through all your words and links, when your conclusion is so wrong.
Here, on this particular sub-thread, I was not asking you to go back and follow any links (other than to direct you to read the end of one particular paper, which I subsequently quoted for you anyway).
You should have been able to understand the point being made; after all, you chose to interject yourself into the middle of this particular part of the discussion, so you should be aware of the context. You aren’t, because you do as I previously described.
The fault is with you, David.
If it be bisected by a plane tangential to the orbit, the masses of the two halves are inversely as the distances of their centers of gravity from the earths center and, therefore, if the latter were to disappear suddenly, no axial rotation, as in the case of a weight thrown off, would ensue.
Do you think the programmers of the orbit simulator had the two halves of the moon be of equal mass, or different masses?”
No of course not.
Why would they? Given that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Moon has such a loony mass distribution.
Even with such a distribution, the CM would simply be shifted inward. And the moon would simply rotate around this new CM.
Are we to believe all the other tidally locked Moons have such a special mass distribution?
He is acknowledging that a uniform sphere or a ‘weight thrown off’ WOULD fly off with axial rotation.
The programmers did it correctly.
Thanks Tesla!
nate…”The orbit simulator clearly shows that when you turn off Earths gravity, the Moon flies off spinning around its own axis”.
All that proves is that person who programmed the simulator is wrong. Are you alarmists all that naive?
Better luck next time.
Like JDH, Gordon doesn’t understand basic rotational kinematics.
More false accusations from DA.
Nothing new.
False how?
You have no idea, but think your comment matters anyway.
Here’s your chance to prove you’re not a whiny, cowardly clown:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369740
Again, what links have you shared?
JD’s point is obviously that if you agree to the terms, he will supply the links. Really not that hard to follow, David.
‘All that proves is that person who programmed the simulator is wrong. Are you alarmists all that naive?’
Empty assertion. You’re going to have to do better than that, G.
This simulation is developed by the Univ of Colorado Physics dept., a project led by Nobel Laureate Carl Weiman.
It is simply numerically solving Newton’s laws for orbits. Not that difficult. Especially since you were satisfied with the simulator’s ability to generate correct orbits, velocities, etc.
Extremely unlikely to be wrong, but its always good to have hopes and dreams.
Nate, in your false religion, do you have to make annual visits to your “churches” like this?
More JDH evasion by trying to change the subject.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369735
‘do you have to make annual visits to your ‘churches’
Nope, anyway UC Boulder is not a church.
Wait, did you get a BS degree from a church? That makes a lot of sense.
Your physics all seems to be from the book of Genesis, and your math from the book of Numbers.
stupid…”A translating object does not change orientation and all points on the object have the same velocity”.
That’s a revision of the original definition you put forward for curvilinear translation. You claimed initially that each point on the body had to be moving parallel to each other and with the same velocity.
It’s not possible for a body on a curved path not to change orientation. If a horse is running down a backstretch on a track, the moment it reaches the curved portion of the track it changes it’s orientation. If it’s running on a circular track it’s orientation is always changing, like the Moon.
Besides, a translating body can change its orientation anytime as long as it does not rotate about its axis or centre of gravity. It can be performing rectilinear translation in a straight line then curve away from the linear, changing it orientation. The criterion is that all points on the body must keep moving parallel to each other and at the same velocity.
I would say the curve has to be continuous. If a body moved in a straight line then encountered a path perpendicular to the line, in order for it to be translation the translation would have to be broken into two parts.
Your example of a ferris wheel chair is not curvilinear motion because the chair orientation is in part independent of the orbital motion of the frame to which it is attached. At 12 and 6 o’clock, people in the chair are moving horizontally and at 3 and 9 o’clock, they are moving vertically WHILE ALWAYS UPRIGHT. In between those hours they are moving both horizontally and vertically. The chair axle on the frame itself is always moving tangential to a radial line from the centre of the ferris wheel.
The Moon, as opposed to the chair, never encounters such motion. It has one constant force pulling it toward the Earth’s centre. At the same time, it has its own momentum to counteract that force and the momentum has to be precise for the orbit. Too much momentum and it will leave orbit on a curved trajectory and too little will cause it to spiral into the Earth.
That is all curvilinear translation because all points on the Moon are traveling parallel to each other at all times and they all share a common angular velocity around the Earth’s centre.
Gordon Robertson says:
Its not possible for a body on a curved path not to change orientation. If a horse is running down a backstretch on a track, the moment it reaches the curved portion of the track it changes its orientation.
Wrong.
If the horse came out of the gate facing north (say), it could choose to face north its entire time around the track.
So it’d be running sideways at the top of the first turn, running backwards on the back stretch, and running sideways in the other direction on the back turn. It would then finish still facing north.
Indeed, that’s what the “horse” on the right-hand animation below is doing: orbiting while always facing in the same direction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
That’s what the “horse” on the right-hand side of this animation is doing — orbiting while always pointing in the same direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Back to reality: A racehorse does NOT run sideways.
A horse can certainly walk sideways — he just moves his feet perpendicular to the direction he’s facing. He can’t move sideways very fast, but he can move sideways.
Otherwise, you have put a constraint on the horse that does not exist for the Moon. So you analogy is baseless, as several people have been pointing out for a long time.
Look at the effort DA has to go to to deny reality and pervert physics.
Soooooo desperate….
You don’t even attempt to counter my argument logically.
You can’t even admit that a horse can move sideways.
The horses I bet on always seem to run sideways.
DA…”If the horse came out of the gate facing north (say), it could choose to face north its entire time around the track.”
I said…”Its not possible for a body on a curved path not to change orientation”.
Orientation seems to be the word bothering you. I took the meaning of orientation from stupid’s reference to the direction of a tangential line to the instantaneous position of the Moon in its orbit.
That was the context in which I answered and you changed the context to a silly situation where a horse could ‘choose’ to keep facing north while it ran around a track.
If I was offering a generalized statement I’d have said…”Its not possible for a body on a curved path not to change direction”.
Even if your horse runs sideways and backwards, it’s still must change direction on curves.
If you want to call direction “orientation,” I can work with that.
Can a horse go around a track while always oriented towards the north?
hat was the context in which I answered and you changed the context to a silly situation where a horse could choose to keep facing north while it ran around a track
Can a horse — or person — run around a track while always facing north?
Gordon squeals:
“Orientation seems to be the word bothering you. I took the meaning of orientation from stupid’s reference to the direction of a tangential line to the instantaneous position of the Moon in its orbit.”
You allegedly went to engineering school and don’t know what orientation is??? And then you assume the WRONG definition?? Incredulous!!
And then Gordon moans:
“”Its not possible for a body on a curved path not to change direction”.”
Are you kidding me?! A body on a curved path that does not change direction is the definition of curvilinear translation, Einstein. What were you doing in your alleged engineering classes? Sleeping? Of course its possible. Why do you think there is a kinematic definition for curvilinear translation if that motion is impossible?! One example would be the seat of a ferris wheel.
Gordon squeals again:
“Even if your horse runs sideways and backwards, it’s still must change direction on curves.”
Wrong. It would be very difficult for the horse, but a talented horse could trot sideways as he made his way around the curve, always facing north. A person could do it easily. You just don’t understand what curvilinear translation is. Never did. Never will.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369637
“s not possible for a body on a curved path not to change orientation. If a horse is running down a backstretch on a track, the moment it reaches the curved portion of the track it changes its orientation. If its running on a circular track its orientation is ”
There we have the crux of you guys confusions.
As explained above, horses and cars motions are constrained: their front points along their path.
No such constraint on objects in space. Moon doesnt have a front.
In orbital motion, “front” and “back” is not an issue. The motion is due to the forces acting on the body.
The desperation continues.
JDH, please make another cute picture with pieces of felt. That might calm you down.
This time you could try making one with race-horses – or maybe a merry-go-round.
Nurse, why don’t we put JDH on a fast-moving merrygoround and then watch how he rotates when he lets go and flys off?
JDHuffman says:
The motion is due to the forces acting on the body.
What forces?
This has been addressed DA. You need to pay attention.
What forces?
I’ve never seen you quote any, and I’m not going to guess.
Stalling like this is a typical tactic of those who don’t have science on their side.
DA, if I take the time to explain orbital motion to you, will you agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days?
No, because you’ve made clear you don’t know what orbiting is.
How about answering: what forces?
I thought David said further upthread that resorting to insults meant you had given up on discussing the physics? Or does that only apply one way…
When are you going to define “rotation?”
When are you going to specify how to determine if a celestial body is rotating about an internal axis?
What, again!?
But seriously David, and more relevant to the point I was actually just making…aren’t you going to chastise nurse ratchet, professor P, Dr Myki et al? Or are you just going to be a hypocrite?
DA…”When are you going to define rotation?
When are you going to specify how to determine if a celestial body is rotating about an internal axis?”
*********
We thought you knew all this.
-local rotation is angular displacement of a mass about its axis or centre of gravity.
-rotation is not translation
-rotation about an external axis is the rotation of a mass about an external axis, as the Moon orbiting the Earth.
However, for the last definition you must understand the mechanics. The Moon is moving with linear momentum and wants to move in a straight line. Earth’s gravitational field acts on the near side of the Moon and nudges it off that straight line into a curve.
The Moon’s momentum is critical to a particular orbit. If there is not enough momentum, Earth’s gravitational field will nudge it too much, taking it out of a safe orbit and moving it into a parabolic path. In the worst case, insufficient momentum will result in the Moon spiraling into the Earth.
If the momentum is excessive, the Moon will break free, but Earth’s gravitation field will curve it’s momentum into a parabolic or hyperbolic path as it leaves orbit and flies off into space.
The point to get here is that with proper lunar momentum, the Earth’s gravitational field will nudge the near face around so it is always facing the Earth. It is crucial to note that the entire lunar body turns slightly along a radial line and keeps all points on the body moving in parallel paths.
This is the same as JD’s plane flying an orbital path around the planet within the atmosphere. As long as the plane has fuel and can maintain the proper power to keep it level, the plane will always remain right side up, with its bottom facing the Earth.
The plane at no time turns upside down as that would require a fatal rotation.
GR wrote:
-local rotation is angular displacement of a mass about its axis or centre of gravity.
Very good.
So we finally agree the Moon is “locally rotating.”
As is the body on the left in this animation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367599
JD,
you mean the gravitational forces on the moon causing the moon to turn?
“So we finally agree…”
Wrong, David. You are obviously unable to read.
‘In orbital motion, ‘front’ and ‘back’ is not an issue. The motion is due to the forces acting on the body.’
You guys seek comfort in familiar – a Moon behaves like my Pony!
But you guys assume the forces make a Moon always point in the direction of its motion, like a car’s wheels do for the car or a horses legs for a horse.
Unlike wheels, or legs, gravity applies no torque.
nate…”No such constraint on objects in space. Moon doesnt have a front”.
Neither does the horse if you want to move your mind into another dimension.
Front and back is relative to the track and the direction of motion. If you used your backward claim, the front would then become its butt.
Why is it any different for the Moon relative to the Earth’s centre and it orbit?
In that case its bottom always faces the Earth and its top always faces space. Remember, with gravity, down is always in the direction of gravitational force. In the case of the Moon, down is the side always facing us, which is also the bottom.
Of course, it depends where you view it from on Earth. Like JD’s plane it is never upside down as it orbits the Earth.
Since the Moon rotates CCW if viewed from Polaris you could claim its front faces in the direction of motion. With its bottom always facing the Earth and its front facing the direction of orbital motion, it is apparently fixed in position as it orbits and not rotating about its axis.
If the Moon rotates every 28 days, and the Earth rotates 28 times per lunar orbit, the face we always see would have to turn away from us and move through 360 degrees. It does not, it is fixed in position.
Now Gordon thinks a horse doesn’t have a front.
It’s the end they eat from, OK GR? Much different from the other end. Inspect closely if you must.
Any other questions on the anatomy of horses?
David, please try to improve your reading comprehension skills.
Guys, think of it this way.
If the Moon were not moving and in empty space, and superman gave it a push, what would happen?
Would the Moon have to turn before moving in the direction of the push? No.
He could apply the push in ANY direction and the Moon would behave the same.
Now if the Moon was moving already, and superman gave it a push perpendicular to the motion, what would happen?
Would it turn into the direction of the force? No. It would just move in that direction.
No law of physics would require it to turn into the direction of motion.
A sideways force on a car will not move it, while the same force applied in the forward direction will move it.
Thus car needs to turn into the direction of motion.
Moons and cars behave differently. But thats ok.
N,
You wrote –
“No such constraint on objects in space. Moon doesnt have a front.”
In the sense that the same face of the Moon always points in the direction travel, of course it does! Just as one face always points at the Earth, one points away, one points backwards and so on.
If you do a bit of research, you will find out why one face of the Moon always faces the Earth. It is to do with mass distribution within the Moon, and the force of gravity. I won’t waste time explaining further, but others may choose to find out for themselves.
Yes, Nate, there is a forward facing direction for the Moon. You may call it the front, if you wish.
Cheers.
N,
You wrote –
“No such constraint on objects in space. Moon doesnt have a front.”
In the sense that the same face of the Moon always points in the direction travel, of course it does! Just as one face always points at the Earth, one points away, one points backwards and so on.
If you do a bit of research, you will find out why one face of the Moon always faces the Earth. It is to do with mass distribution within the Moon, and the force of gravity. I won’t waste time explaining further, but others may choose to find out for themselves.
Yes, Nate, there is a forward facing direction for the Moon.Some call it the front.
Cheers.
MF, just get 2 or 3 friends (if you have any) and try to push a car sideways.
Now forward (in neutral, brake off!). Any diffrent?
Wheels are useful, thats why they were invented!
Moons dont have wheels, they can be pushed equally well forward or sideways.
Gordon squeals breathlessly:
“It’s not possible for a body on a curved path not to change orientation!”
Please review the following university kinematic notes:
[http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/fall2017/201/phy201_lect17_handout.pdf]
On page one you will find the defintion of translation:
“Translational motion: The orientation of the object is unchanged during the motion.”
And the illustration immediately below it shows an object on a curvilinear path with its orientation not changing.
Gordon squeals again:
“Besides, a translating body can change its orientation anytime as long as it does not rotate about its axis or centre of gravity.”
Wrong, Gordon. A translating body can never change its orientation, as my reference above states. If a body changed its orientation, a line in that body would not remain parallel to its original position, another requirement for curvilinear translation.
Gordon further moans:
“The criterion is that all points on the body must keep moving parallel to each other and at the same velocity.”
WRONG! You lie and distort. The requirement is as follows:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration”
[https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
That is NOT the same as “all points on the body must keep moving parallel to each other”
Gordon shrieks:
“Your example of a ferris wheel chair is not curvilinear motion”
WRONG! First of all, I said the ferris wheel chair is an example of curvilinear TRANSLATION, not motion. Secondly the chairs movement meets the requirements of a translating body. The chairs orientation never changes during its circular orbit. You don’t know what you are talking about. Secondly, the following kinematic reference source shows a picture of a ferris wheel with gondolas instead of seats, and states, “Each gondola is subject to curvilinear translation” (see slide 3).
[http://madisoncollegephysics.net/233/week09-1.pdf]
Gordon moans again:
“That is all curvilinear translation because all points on the Moon are traveling parallel to each other at all times and they all share a common angular velocity around the Earth’s centre.”
WRONG! You have the wrong definition of curvilinear tranlation. The correct requirement is “every line in the body remains parallel to its original position”.
It’s obvious you never took a physics course in your life.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369637
JDHuffman says:
The motion is due to the forces acting on the body.
Even still you get the basics wrong — you just don’t understand that orbiting and internal rotation are two independent motions, as captured here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369381
I don’t chase links, especially yours, which I have discovered are always wrong.
If you have a point, then make it. Otherwise you don’t.
The point is made in the linked comment.
Then quote it. I’m not going to some link to guess what your point is.
So rather than you just click a button on your mouse, I have to restate what I have already written!? Seems a bit unreasonable, David.
If you can paste a link, you can paste a quote.
Instead of expecting us to go search for what you might have meant.
If I can post a link, you can click on it.
I’ve never seen DA so desperate. He just keeps linking to that irrelevant graphic, and making claims that he has no way to substantiate.
I probably shouldn’t be laughing….
What’s the difference in the Moon between the left-hand animation and the right-hand animation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
How many times have people explained that to you, DA?
Here’s a new one. Is the blue jet flying upside-down at any time, as it flies the equator?
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
You evaded the question.
Whats the difference in the Moon between the left-hand animation and the right-hand animation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Non clown, you evaded the question:
Is the blue jet flying upside-down at any time, as it flies the equator?
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
Yet again you evaded the question.
Whats the difference in the Moon between the left-hand animation and the right-hand animation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Ooooh, goody! Another pointless gotcha!
Either that, or DA is really so stupid he cannot see a difference.
Take your pick.
Cheers
nate…”G, All points on the Moon along that vector are turning in concentric orbits, including the axis (centre).
Yes, and that means the outermost points are moving faster, and the innermost points slower”.
*********
You missed my point entirely.
If all points are moving in concentric circles “AROUND THE EARTH” how the heck can they also be turning in circles around the Moon’s axis?
The same lunar side is always toward us, right? If you draw a radial line from the Earths centre, through that side, through the Moon’s centre, and through the far side, all points along that line are turning in concentric circles.
This is a no-brainer.
Even though points on each concentric circle are traveling at different velocities, they all complete an orbit in the same time. That’s why, on a rigid body, the velocity is regarded as the angular velocity of the radial line, not individual particles.
The velocity of each point is a function of the velocity of the rigid body. Each point is FORCED to complete an orbit in the same time because they are part of the rigid body.
The angular velocity of the Moon in its orbit is based on that radial line. Therefore all points on the RIGID BODY are moving at the same velocity, otherwise, they’d complete the orbit at different times along the radial line.
I have just described curvilinear translation WITHOUT local rotation, the latter being impossible with all points on the Moon moving in concentric orbits around the Earth.
Gordon Robertson says:
If all points are moving in concentric circles AROUND THE EARTH how the heck can they also be turning in circles around the Moons axis?
How does the Earth turn in circles around its polar axis while also orbiting the Sun?
DA…”How does the Earth turn in circles around its polar axis while also orbiting the Sun?”
For cripes sake, are you really this stupid?
The Earth DOES NOT…repeat DOES NOT…have the same face toward the Sun during it’s orbit. We know the Earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours.
If the Earth did have the same face toward the Sun it could not rotate about its polar axis.
There’s more to this than is immediately obvious. It’s all you alarmists who cannot grasp even the simplest of physics. I have dumbed down my explanation as simply as possible yet you obtuse alarmists still cannot grasp what is being said.
Not one of you is able to rebut my concentric circle example. All of you look at the gif example you presented with the Moon in orbit around the Earth and like Goofy from the Mickey Mouse show you all say, “Gorsh…yup…it sure looks like the Moon is rotating on its axis”.
Gordon Robertson says:
If the Earth did have the same face toward the Sun it could not rotate about its polar axis.
Why?
DA,
Don’t you know? Are you thick?
Cheers.
Gordon,
You claim that we can’t rebut your concentric circle argument.
“Not one of you is able to rebut my concentric circle example.”
Here goes,
The farside of the moon or the outside of your set of concentric cirles is a bigger circle than the inside circle, so therefore, the outside circle is moving faster, thus the moon must be turning in order that the outside circle does not part ways with the inside circle, or since the moon stays together and does not pull itself apart, then it must be rotating.
Eggcelent.
bob stumbles into reality: “…thus the moon must be turning in order that the outside circle does not part ways with the inside circle…”
Yes, Moon is constantly changing direction, due to the forces acting on it. It is NOT rotating on its axis. It is orbiting.
What forces?
Correct Bob. Also, the moon must be rotating because it is not translating, since as you say, the outer velocity is greater than the inner. When the velocities of two points on an object are different, that object is not translating, which also means, it must be rotating.
b,
You are a fool. The tip of a wind turbine blade is travelling much faster than the root portion.
If the blade rotated about its centre, it would not remain attached to the hub.
The Moon rotates around the Earth. It does not rotate about its centre of mass or gravity.
You have confused yourself by adhering to the deny, divert and confuse tactics of pseudoscientific GHE true believers.
The offside of a motor car travels faster than the nearside in a curve. It does not tear itself apart. It is actually fitted with a differential gear to account for the fact that the the offside wheel travels further than the nearside wheel. The differential housing is the big lump in the middle of the axle of a rear wheel drive car. Have a look if you wish – I’m not pulling your leg.
Cheers.
And Mike chimes in saying a wind turbine blade does not rotate around it’s center.
Could you really not understand what Mike meant, blob?
Where is the center of mass of the blade?
Is it at the center of the blade, or is it where the blade attaches to the hub? Or is it in the center of the hub?
You are right DREMPT,
Because I don’t understand the gibberish mFlynn puts out,
He is so deluded that he doesn’t understand that the moon revolves around the earth but rotates around its center of gravity.
Which you don’t understand either.
As for the wind turbine, of course the blade rotates around the center of the hub.
What part of that do you not understand?
blob, I see you are in the mood to double down on your mistakes today.
Mike said:
“If the blade rotated about its centre, it would not remain attached to the hub.”
I asked you where the center of mass of the blade was. The center of mass of the blade is in the center of the blade. Not where it fixes to the hub, and not in the middle of the hub itself. In the center of the actual blade itself.
So his statement is correct. If the blade were to be rotating about its center, it could not remain attached to the hub.
Drempty,
It depends on what kind of wind turbine it is, doesn’t it.
Flynn didn’t specify.
so double down all you want you are still wrong.
Also the blade of a typical 3 blade wind turbine is rotating around the hub, dumbass.
Also this is not correct
“The center of mass of the blade is in the center of the blade.”
It’s closer to the hub, dumbass.
blob sees his error, so becomes belligerent.
DREMPT makes an error and doesn’t even know he made an error
I asked you where the center of mass of the blade was. The center of mass of the blade is in the center of the blade. Not where it fixes to the hub, and not in the middle of the hub itself. In the center of the actual blade itself.
Where is the center of mass of a wind turbine blade again?
You said it was in the center of the blade, you sticking to that position?
And what was my error again?
What is the matter with you, blob?
Mike said:
“If the blade rotated about its centre, it would not remain attached to the hub.”
Where’s the center of the blade?
OK, so you day the center of mass of a wind turbine blade is closer to one end of the blade than the other. Fine. And still, to rotate about that center of mass, it could not remain attached to the hub whilst doing so. Right!?
So what the hell is your problem!?
DREMPTY
This is what I said
“And Mike chimes in saying a wind turbine blade does not rotate around its center.”
Which is not true, which means any conclusion drawn from that is also not true.
Wind turbine blades do not detach from the hub because they are not rotating around their center.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Detach the blade from the hub. Find the center of mass of the blade. Drill a hole in it and stick an axle through it so the blade can now rotate about its center.
Would it be able to rotate about its center in this manner if one end of it was still attached to the hub?
The answer is “no”.
Do you now finally understand the point Mike was making?
If the moon did not rotate, it would be fixed in its orientation in space. We would then see all faces every 27 days or so. Because we don’t, it must be rotating.
Simple.
mickey…”If the moon did not rotate, it would be fixed in its orientation in space”.
Speaking of Goofy, here’s mickey itself.
We are talking about local axial rotation of the Moon about said axis. Your rotation is what we usually call orbiting, or revolving. Technically, it can be called rotation if you make it clear it is a system with the Moon in orbit and rotating about the Earth’s centre.
This debate began over a claim that the Moon does not rotate about its axis. Not the Earth’s axis, or any other axis, but the Moon’s own axis.
Yes, Gordon, the Moon rotates about both the Earth (“orbiting”) and about its own internal polar axis (“spinning”).
See the left-hand side here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367599
DA…”See the left-hand side here:”
In your primitive mind you see what you want to see. In my engineering-trained mind I see the actuality and there is no rotation about the Moon’s axis.
DM,
You wrote –
“If the moon did not rotate, it would be fixed in its orientation in space.”
Not at all. Newton’s hypothetical cannonball does not rotate when fired from his hypothetical smoothbore cannon. Why should it?
As Newton pointed out, as the speed of the cannonball increases, there comes a point where the cannonball is continuously falling toward the earth, but never reaches it, as its forward velocity compensates for the acceleration due to gravity.
The cannonball is not rotating, just orbiting. As do satellites, pointing equipment towards Earth at all times for various reasons. No rotation about the satellite’s centre of gravity required or existing.
Maybe if Newton had used an arrow rather than a cannonball, you would be able to see that an orbiting body can remain aligned with its orbital path without having to tumble end over end. In the absence of atmospheric resistance, the arrow can move along its path backwards, sideways or whatever. Its centre of gravity will remain firmly fixed to the orbital path of course, fixed in place by gravity. Gravity stops the object from disappearing into deep space.
Cheers.
‘Maybe if Newton had used an arrow rather than a cannonball, you would be able to see that an orbiting body can remain aligned with its orbital path without having to tumble end over end.’
Nope.
Again, cannonballs and Moons dont have wheels or legs, so they dont NEED to align with their orbital path.
Youve never explained why they should.
“As Newton pointed out, as the speed of the cannonball increases, there comes a point where the cannonball is continuously falling toward the earth, but never reaches it, as its forward velocity compensates for the acceleration due to gravity.”
Yes, the simulator cleared all that up in our favor. No need for an arrow!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369548
Yes, we understand that’s how the “Spinners” see it, Ian: any change in orientation of a body wrt to the fixed stars = axial rotation. Your viewpoint is understood. Thanks for the recap.
We agree. So let’s drop it?
No, Ian, we don’t agree. I just summarized your argument for you. We are all well aware of the “Spinner” argument.
Why not try to familiarize yourself with our arguments sometime? I’ve never seen any evidence of any understanding from you.
So specify how to operationally determine
if a celestial body is rotating or not.
…I’ve never seen any evidence of any understanding from you.
DM,
You wrote –
“So lets drop it?” Once again, trying to bend others to your will? If you want to drop it, go ahead. Who’s to stop you?
Why do you need to involve anybody else? Is that standard pseudoscientific GHE true believer practice, or do you suffer from a lack of self esteem?
Be a man. If you don’t want to do something, you don’t have to! You don’t need approval or permission from anybody else. Stand up for yourself, for goodness’ sake.
Cheers.
Just google “synchronous rotation”.
You know I am right.
Ian, please stop trolling.
mickey…”Just google synchronous rotation.”
Never mind googling anything. Explain how the Moon can keep the same side to the Earth and still rotate about its axis, synchronously or otherwise.
I know you have an image in your mind about it happening. I am challenging you to trash the image and prove it can happen.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yes, we understand thats how the Spinners see it, Ian: any change in orientation of a body wrt to the fixed stars = axial rotation.
So what’s your definition of axial rotation?
DA,
You wrote –
“So whats your definition of axial rotation?”
What’s yours? Don’t have one? Why am I not surprised?
Cheers.
DREMPT
This is not the spinners postition.
“any change in orientation of a body wrt to the fixed stars = axial rotation.”
As usual you try to force us into positions we are not taking.
If it changes orientation wrt to the fixed stars and returns to the original orientation after a period then it may either be revolving or rotating.
You don’t even understand your own argument.
Now dear DREMPT, that’s a nice comment.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
It’s true.
“any change in orientation of a body wrt to the fixed stars = axial rotation” is the “Spinner” argument, in a nutshell.
You say this:
“If it changes orientation wrt to the fixed stars and returns to the original orientation after a period then it may either be revolving or rotating.”
That’s false, as far as the “Spinner” argument is concerned. Because if an object could change orientation wrt to the fixed stars and return to its original orientation after a period, and that be dubbed “revolution” (with no axial rotation) then you would be agreeing with the “Non-Spinners”.
If you are referring to a combination of both revolution and axial rotation, then your “may either be revolving or rotating statement does not apply to that.
Drempt,
If it did this
“Because if an object could change orientation wrt to the fixed stars and return to its original orientation after a period, and that be dubbed revolution (with no axial rotation) then you would be agreeing with the Non-Spinners.”
Note you said with no axial rotation!
If it had no axial rotation, then it would not change orientation with respect to the fixed stars, so you are contradicting yourself.
But that case has never been observed.
That case being the one where a satellite has fixed orientation to the fixed stars while revolving around its parent body.
You guys are still flunking basic astronomy.
I’m not contradicting myself, blob. I’m explaining how your statement:
“If it changes orientation wrt to the fixed stars and returns to the original orientation after a period then it may either be revolving or rotating.”
contradicts the “Spinners” position. I’m glad that you see there’s contradiction, even though you have falsely attributed it to the wrong person.
DREMPT,
I’ll parse it for you
The sun rotates and returns to the same orientation after a period, it is rotating.
The earth revolves around the sun and returns to the same orientation after a period. This period being a year.
The earth also rotates and returns to the same orientation after a day.
The moon also rotates around its axis and returns to the same orientation after one month.
The moon also revolves around the earth and returns to the same orientation after a month.
Two two things at the same time.
Of course you are too stupid to see that you indeed contradicted yourself, here I’ll parse it for you.
“Because if an object could change orientation wrt to the fixed stars and return to its original orientation after a period, and that be dubbed revolution (with no axial rotation) then you would be agreeing with the Non-Spinners.”
An object can not change its orientation with respect to the stars without rotating, yet you specify no axial rotation.
Viewed from the moon, the stars rise and fall, and return to the same position after one month, but that’s not revolution with no axial rotation. It’s revolution with axial rotation.
Dumbass
blob, as I said:
“If you are referring to a combination of both revolution and axial rotation, then your “may either be revolving or rotating” statement does not apply to that.”
I love it when people make my point for me, without even realizing it. That’s been happening quite a bit, recently.
DREMPT,
You just don’t understand logic either, an object that is both revolving and rotating is of course also rotating or revolving.
Just ask the question is the earth orbiting or revolving?
Of course the answer is yes.
And just to be clear, I will provide an example of an object that is changing its orientation with respect to the stars but is not rotating,
that is if you ask me nicely
because it is an exception to what you are calling the spinner position, which points out that you have no clue.
“An object can not change its orientation with respect to the stars without rotating, yet you specify no axial rotation.”
You said it right there, blob.
“any change in orientation of a body wrt to the fixed stars = axial rotation” is the “Spinner” argument, in a nutshell.
You see? You proved me right, again.
blob, you seem to intuitively reject your own position. We see that further downthread as well. You waste all this energy arguing with me when I’m just explaining to you the position that logically your “side” of this debate must hold.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-370140
bob d…”If it had no axial rotation, then it would not change orientation with respect to the fixed stars, so you are contradicting yourself”.
Yes, it would. The action of gravity on the Moon causes the rotation wrt the stars without local rotation.
Gordon,
So an object can rotate with respect to the stars yet not rotate locally.
That’s just a contradiction, how can an object rotate and not rotate at the same time.
Drempt,
You continue to misrepresent my position.
Yet your position is that something that is obviously rotating because it is not pointing in the same direction as it rotates around, and it makes one revolution and voila it is pointing in the same direction again.
Remember, to be not spinning, it has to keep the same orientation with respect to the stars, you have admitted down thread that that has never been observed.
Since the moon does not keep the same orientation with respect to the stars, therefore it is spinning.
“Since the moon does not keep the same orientation with respect to the stars, therefore it is spinning.”
blob once again confirms that my representation of the “Spinner” argument is correct.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369951
Gordon. You are a complete and utter imbecile. And I am being kind when I say that.
As explained, you need to move on from kinematic descriptions. I know that’s hard for you, when you have no other argument, but that’s just the way it is.
Anyone sick and tired of this discussion? Just google for the answer and you will find
“The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this synchronous rotation.”
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
If people knew and accepted facts the climate deniers here, who are the same as the rotation deniers, would have to pack up and go to WUWT.
Yes, that is the stance of “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”. If that is your religion, then you must willingly agree.
If you have the ability to think for yourself, a simple racehorse debunks the nonsense.
Tell me more about this racehorse. When is it next running and where. I have my bookmaker on the line.
I got a tip from my bookie, he says to bet on the horse rotating on it’s axis.
Well you sure don’t want to bet on the horse that’s not!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369731
Does the horse face in a constant direction while orbiting the track?
David, please stop trolling.
droll…”The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis.”
We have spent a lot of time disproving that claim. Tesla disproved it. It seems that only people able to think outside the box can come to grasp with this myth.
All points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles in the lunar orbit. It is not possible for those points to cross over adjacent circles as required by local rotation about the lunar axis.
Gordon Robertson says:
All points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles in the lunar orbit.
That’s cause the Moon is rotating.
See the left-hand figure here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
WRONG DA, that motion is due to orbiting.
Learn some physics.
PS You forgot to answer my question: Is the blue jet upside-down on opposites of the planet?
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
*BOTH* moons in this animation are orbiting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Do you understand that much at least?
DA, you can’t understand it. You have to be content that you can handle basic functions like eating, typing, etc. But, you can’t think for yourself. You can’t hold a job. But, you are able to feed yourself. See you can do something.
Yes, both moons are orbiting, in your favorite link. But, only ONE is NOT rotating on its axis. If the moon always faces the inside, it is NOT rotating on its axis.
It’s actually pretty easy, but you won’t be able to understand.
At least you can still feed yourself–remember the food goes in your mouth, not in your ear.
Gordon, except it is not required for “those points to cross over adjacent circles” for the moon to be rotating.
The Moon orbits the earth in synchronous rotation which means the period of rotation is the same as the period of revolution.
period ******* paragraph
b,
You will notice that Newtons cannonball explanation has no forces involved which would result in the cannonball rotating. Just initial velocity and the force of gravity.
You wrote –
“The Moon orbits the earth in synchronous rotation which means the period of rotation is the same as the period of revolution.” – which is just sciencey sounding gobbledygook.
Just parroting someone else’s fantasy does not turn it into fact. That would be about as stupid as believing that Gavin Schmidt is a world renowned climate scientist, or that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!
As Dr Spencer pointed out, from the Moon, the Earth is pretty much fixed in the sky. This indicates that the Moon certainly doesn’t regularly rotate about its centre of mass or gravity.
Maybe you need to insert more meaningless words and asterisks into your comment?
Cheers.
Flynn,
calling it sciencey sounding gobbledegook, just means you don’t understand it.
Start with a basic astronomy textbook.
Or a dictionary
“syn·chro·nous
/ˈsiNGkrənəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
existing or occurring at the same time.
“glaciations were approximately synchronous in both hemispheres”
2.
ASTRONOMY
(of a satellite or its orbit) making or denoting an orbit around the earth or another celestial body in which one revolution is completed in the period taken for the body to rotate about its axis.”
First you need to take your foot out of your mouth, then speak, then put the other foot back in.
bob d… re synchronous..”existing or occurring at the same time.”
Yes, Bob, we get what synchronous means. Now show us, using physics, how the Moon can keep the same face toward the Earth for one orbit and still manage to turn on its axis through a full rotation of 360 degrees.
It’s not effing possible.
I gave you a very simple test. Mark a coin on its edge, put the mark against the perimeter of another coin and move the coin around the other coin, keeping the mark pointed at the centre of the other coin. Try keeping the mark against the perimeter and rotate it 360 degrees about its axis at the same time.
You can’t do it you thick, Aussie twit…said affectionately with a laugh.
Once you frustrate yourself trying to do that, think out why it can’t be done.
When you hold the mark against the perimeter of the other coin, pointing at its centre, all points on the moving coin are moving in parallel, concentric lines around the stationary coins axis.
You cannot roll the moving coin around the perimeter of the other coin while keeping the mark against the perimeter. Therefore you have to SLIDE it around. That sliding motion is curvilinear translation by definition.
If you roll it, as in one synchronous rotation per orbit, the mark will rotate through 360 degrees.
Gordon,
First of all, I am not an Aussie.
Second I tried your coin thing and I couldn’t do it with out rotating the outer coin.
Sorry chum, the coin has to rotate to keep the mark against the inner coin.
bob d…”The Moon orbits the earth in synchronous rotation which means the period of rotation is the same as the period of revolution”.
********
Just keep parroting the authority figures Bob, after all that’s how alarmist climate science works.
On the other hand, you could use your brain and check it for yourself.
I won’t hold my breath, shall I?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369951
I’ve never met such a dumb fake engineer.
As explained, you need to move on from kinematic descriptions. I know that’s hard for you, when you have no other argument, but that’s just the way it is.
So Gordon,
You can use definitions for curvilinear translation, but I can’t use definitions for synchronous rotation.
By the way, synchronous rotation is a sub-set of curvilinear translation.
I suppose you studied conic sections at some point in your mathematics training. maybe not though, I suspect you never got to trigonometry.
OK, blob.
Ultimately you have to realize it is not that important to convince some eartflatter lunatic in the chatroom that the Moon spins, but rather that you know it does.
Yes
eben…”Ultimately you have to realize it is not that important to convince some eartflatter lunatic in the chatroom that the Moon spins, but rather that you know it does”.
We may have to expel you from the Skeptics Club for heresy.
nate…”This simulation is developed by the Univ of Colorado Physics dept., a project led by Nobel Laureate Carl Weiman”.
Then let me clarify. The Univ of Colorado physics dept and Nobel Laureate Carl Weiman are wrong if they think the Moon rotates about its axis.
I have proved it conclusively and not one person has rebutted my proof. Furthermore, Nicola Tesla has proved it as well using an entirely different proof featuring kinetic energy.
I’m sticking with Nick.
GR: NASA has landed on the Moon, and taken off again. Tesla hasn’t.
Why wouldn’t NASA have the best opinion about whether the Moon rotates? If they got that wrong their lunar modules would not have met up with their lunar orbiters.
DA, all they had to consider was Moon’s orbit, since Moon does not have axial rotation.
You need to learn some physics.
Again, another claim by assertion.
Let’s be clear: I don’t believe anything you say. Nothing.
Start proving your claims with references to the physics. If you can.
DA, let’s be REALLY clear.
You are one of the biggest trolls here. You have NOTHING constructive to offer. There are numerous instances where you have been wrong, but you can’t learn. You are clearly wrong about simple things like a racehorse. Yet, you will be stating the same erroneous things this time next year. And, the year after. You can’t learn. You probably haven’t learned anything in the last 15 years, maybe more.
No one has any obligation to prove anything to you. You have chosen to be human waste, and have succeeded.
Nothing new.
I second JDH’s insightful analysis of David Appell’s contribution to this fine blog.
Even so DA serves two useful functions:
1. He provides a punchbag to keep us all in shape.
2. Like the ACLU he is on the wrong side of almost every issue. If you find yourself agreeing with DA (as I sometimes do) it may be time for introspection.
DA…”Why wouldnt NASA have the best opinion about whether the Moon rotates?”
Because NASA also has NASA GISS, a hotbed of alarmist pseudo-scientists.
NASA is a big outfit, are you trying to imply that every scientist at NASA agrees with you?
BTW…you read that from NASA on their educational pages. That’s where they employ scientists who are unable to think for themselves and who can’t get by without appealing to authority.
Gordon,
Stick to clubbing baby seals, a Canadian pastime.
You don’t know crap about physics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369951
As explained, you need to move on from kinematic descriptions. I know that’s hard for you, when you have no other argument, but that’s just the way it is.
this is in parts…the censor doesn’t like a word or two.
DA…”orbiting and internal rotation are two independent motions, as captured here:…”
************
Yet another appeal to authority. Has it not occurred to you that the wiki article is wrong?
I’ll prove it to you in a couple of minutes if you care to take the time.
Get a piece of paper. Draw a quick circle to represent the Earth and put a dot in it for the centre. To the right of it draw another circle to represent the Moon, with a dot in it for centre.
I’m not looking at the Wiki article, I’m looking at the figure.
Plain as day, the only Moon in the animation that always faces the Earth is the Moon on the left — the Moon that’s rotating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
How is that wrong?
DA,
Not rotating. Just following the path dictated by nature. Make yourself a fancy graphic, replace the moon with an arrow, and convince yourself that the arrow is rotating – that is tumbling end over end.
The front of the Moon is the bit that is always facing forward along the orbital path.
Maybe you could stick with sideways galloping horses, or trains that magically twirl sideways as they go around curves.
Cheers.
Says the clown who did not know what curvilinear translation is and confused it with curvilinear motion.
Try studying a book on kinematics. You are less likely to stick your foot in your mouth.
HGS,
I assume I wrote something with which you disagree.
Maybe you would appear slightly less trollish if you could actually quote me?
As to your direction as to what I should study, I’ll ignore it. What do you intend to do about it? Nothing? Then why do you bother flapping your gums to no purpose whatever?
Carry on.
Cheers.
It’s wrong because your brain does not work.
You believe Moon is rotating on its axis because it appears that way to an uneducated clown. To be consistent, you must also believe the blue jet is flying upside-down half the time, as it orbits Earth.
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
But, consistency is not a requirement in pseudoscience, huh?
I’ll answer your questions when you can write comments without your juvenile insults and name calling.
And you can answer mine.
DA,
You wrote –
“Ill answer your questions when you can write comments without your juvenile insults and name calling.
And you can answer mine.”
Why would anybody think that your answers are valuable? Do you have an inflated opinion of your own importance and knowledge?
Why would anybody feel impelled to respond to your stupid gotchas? Are you too lazy or incompetent to find answers to your questions for yourself, or are you just trolling?
Ah, questions, questions!
Cheers.
DA…”Im not looking at the Wiki article, Im looking at the figure.”
You are looking at it with a faulty brain.
part 2…
Now draw a line from the d.o.t at Earth’s centre right through the Moon and out the other side. That line is a radial line since it’s like a sp.o.ke on a wheel, with the wheel being the Moon’s orbit.
In other words, as that line rotates with its ax.le at Earth’s centre it will carve out an area of 360 degrees, as will any point on the line. Each point on that line carves out a co.nc.en.t.ic circle.
part 3…
the word seems to be ‘d.o.t’. Go figure. An entire blurb censored for a three letter word.
****
Where the line meets the Moon’s surface, draw a line perpendicular to the radial line. That is a tangent line. That face is also the face we always see from Earth.
Draw another perpendicular line to the radial line at the Moon’s centre. It is parallel to the first tangent line. Now draw another line at the far side of the Moon perpendicular to the radial line and parallel to the line at the near face and the centre.
As the Moon rotates about the Earth in orbit, those three lines on the Moon must always remain parallel. That means the near side face, the central axis point, and the far side CAN NEVER CROSS.
Now look at your gif on the left hand side with that in mind. It becomes absolutely clear that although the Moon seems to be rotating about its axis it is not.
Remember those three lines as you look at the gif. The point at the near face on the radial line can never leave the radial line to rotate about the axis because THE AXIS IS ALSO ATTACHED TO THE RADIAL LINE.
If you cannot see that, or at least deliver a scientific rebuttal, you are far more dependent on authority than I thought.
dot
JD…”dot”
thanks…maybe it’s concentric.
nope.
the only words left are spoke, axle, and carve.
nope…one of the mysteries of the universe.
Gordon Robertson says:
Where the line meets the Moons surface, draw a line perpendicular to the radial line. That is a tangent line. That face is also the face we always see from Earth.
Gordon, Gordon, Gordon, you are so always-wrong I can only laugh when I read you.
No one could possibly be as always-wrong as you unless they were trying to do it on purpose. It’s just not possible otherwise. It’s really not…. You are like a mummer at a medieval king’s court.
DA,
I assume you are disagreeing with something. You haven’t said what it is you are disagreeing with.
How stupid is that? Or are you agreeing, but reluctant to say so?
It is all a bit mysterious, David.
Why would the Moon rotate around its axis? Magic, perhaps? As Dr Spencer and NASA agree, the Earth appears fixed in the Lunar sky. Do you really believe the Earth rises and sets when viewed from the Moon? It seems agreed by observation that it doesn’t, but you might have secret pseudoscientific GHE true believer knowledge in your possession.
Maybe you hid the secret rotation information with the GHE description, or Trenberth’s missing heat, and Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize, do you think? Look on the bright side – find one, you’ll probably find the others.
Cheers.
Not only is he wrong, he keeps repeating his strange ideas over and over with nil effect. As Einstein said:
“Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results”
pP,
It appears you are responding to David Appell, and I agree with your assessment. I assume he suffers from some form of obsessive compulsive disorder, which compels him to post links to the same irrelevant and pointless graphic at least fifty times in a row!
Keep it up. I appreciate the support.
Cheers.
Not me, I call it practicing.
DA….”Gordon, Gordon, Gordon, you are so always-wrong I can only laugh when I read you”.
You are too obtuse to even follow a simply proof that proves you wrong.
So what?
Eh?
I suspect MF and GR are related. I won’t call them hillbillys, but you have to wonder.
captain droll, please stop trolling.
N,
You wrote –
“This simulation is developed by the Univ of Colorado Physics dept., a project led by Nobel Laureate Carl Weiman.”
Appeals to authority are meaningless, if not well founded. One might as well believe that Newton’s First Law of Motion does not apply to the Moon. What force is causing the moon to rotate? None at all! Nobody even knows whether the Moon initially rotated about its axis or not.
If you believe the CO2 has magic heating properties, you might as well believe that the Moon rotates by magic. Why not?
Cheers.
Please Roy, post the latest UAH data ! This moon-business is excruciating! As bad as watching children scrap in the school yard.
nurse…”Please Roy, post the latest UAH data ! This moon-business is excruciating!”
Sure, it’s not your girdle?
nr,
Why do you bother wasting your time watching things you find excruciating?
Do you suffer from some form of mental aberration, perhaps? Why not watch things you find pleasant?
Do you often spend time watching children in a school yard? Do you get asked to move on?
I’m not surprised.
Cheers
Boys, my job is to keep watch over the inmates here. And yes, my girdle is a bit tight!
nr,
Yet another case of the inmate believing he is in charge of the asylum. Delusional psychosis is apparently rampant amongst pseudoscientific GHE true believers.
Mathematicians believe they are scientists, scientists believe they are Nobel Laureates, and Trenberth wanders the corridors, bemoaning the fact that he cannot find his missing heat!
You are in good company. You should all get together and come to a consensus that you are all important in the general scheme of things. Good luck.
Cheers.
Interesting case- your continued obsession with Trenberth, no matter what the topic. Have you met the guy? Did he do something to upset you? -or did you have an unfortunate experience with somebody with the same name?
Begone, delusional troll!
nurse ratchet
I’m about to confess “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”…
Who else would be ready to do?
Shall I administer punishment? (wink).
Perhaps just please stop trolling.
Here’s an email I just sent to NASA Science:
NASA has it wrong about the Moon rotating about its axis. Tesla proved it does not rotate locally and here’s another explanation.
A radial line from the Earth through Moon reveals that local rotation is not possible. One lunar face is always toward us and where the radial line meets that face, all points on that face form a concentric pseudo-orbit. Further along that line, the axial centre point moves on a larger concentric orbit. Further out still, the dark side moves on an even larger concentric orbit. All points along the radial line through the Moon move on intermediate concentric pseudo-orbits.
With the near side, far side, and centre on concentric circles, it is not possible for local angular rotation to take place. That would require all points crossing over adjacent concentric circles. The apparent rotation of the Moon about it’s axis is an illusion. A closer examination reveals that. The notion of a synchronous rotation with the lunar orbit is a myth.
Another point. Put a mark with an arrow on it at the perimeter of a coin and hold that mark against the perimeter of another coin so it always points to the centre of that coin. Now try rolling that coin around the stationary coin as required by rotation about an axis. It is not possible to keep the arrow against the perimeter and still rotate through 360 degrees.
You must SLIDE the coin around the other in a motion that is apparently curvilinear translation WITHOUT rotation. It’s the only way to keep the arrow against the perimeter of the stationary coin. Curvilinear translation accounts for the Moon turning through 360 degrees per orbit. Local rotation is not required.
The Moon turns during an orbit due to the effect of gravitational force. The Moon has only linear momentum and would fly off on a straight line if gravity was turned off. Gravity serves to nudge the Moon off its straight line motion through each instant but the entire lunar body turns slightly to keep in line with a radial line from Earth’s centre, which is in line with the gravitational force field..
The Moon’s linear momentum is critical to a specific orbit. Therefore the orbit is a resultant path between that critical value and the acceleration provided by Earth’s gravity. The turning of the Moon through 360 degrees per orbit has nothing to do with local rotation, it’s all about the effect of Earth’s gravity.
You wrote to NASA?
Do you really think they read your email?
And didn’t fall about in hysterics?
Are you expecting them to give you a job?
Maybe a job as an engineer?
(but keeping you away from the O-rings).
No, I think the perfect job for you is to accompany the next chimp they send into space. While it does all the work, you can peel the bananas.
DM,
If the guys at NASA are as bright as the guys at the NSF, it will take a few years before they finally admit they are wrong. It took the National Science Foundation around six and a half years to finally correct the idiocy about global sea levels rising as a result of sea ice melting.
Any fool should know that Archimedes’ principle applies to pseudoscientific GHE true believers whether they like it or not.
Just look at the idiotic NASA management belief in ridiculous probability calculations, which they couldn’t actually justify, as reflected in the report of the Rogers Commission.
Feynman concluded that there were serious deficiencies in NASA management’s scientific understanding, and concluded “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
It doesn’t matter who says what, or how firmly they believe it, Nature will have the last laugh – not you or any other pseudoscientific GHE true believer.
What you think is even less important than what dimwits employed by the Government think, and their track record is not particularly impressive. Keep on dreaming that you are wise and knowledgeable, rather than stupid and ignorant, if it keeps you content.
Cheers.
Mike, that quote from Feynman deserves bold:
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
It’s too bad Feynman is not still around. He was certainly one of the great physicists of the modern era. Thanks for sharing the quote.
So JD,
Are you going to show me your math?
Or are you bluffing?
All Hat and no cattle are you?
So bob,
Are you going to explain what you are referring to?
Or are you just content to babble in your confused state, as usual?
JD,
I was referring to this post of yours
“bob and DA, if I show you the math, will you both agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days?”
So show me some math
Very good, bob. You quoted me correctly.
Now see if you can get an adult to explain to you the requirements mentioned.
JD,
Well, as you can read, can’t you, I countered with requirements of my own.
Of course your math has to be correct, any old incorrect math isn’t going to do it.
And of course that’s all you got, because there is no math that can show angular velocity equal to linear velocity except in certain special circumstances.
Which of course with the moon, we are not talking about those special circumstances.
You have no valid math to post so why don’t you quit posting for a month?
Obviously you weren’t able to get an adult to help you, bob.
OK, JD,
Post your math, I will not comment for 90 days.
JD…” He was certainly one of the great physicists of the modern era”.
I’ll second that. I liked his comment on quantum theory, that it works, but no one knows why.
bob d…”And of course thats all you got, because there is no math that can show angular velocity equal to linear velocity except in certain special circumstances”.
*********
The difference between the two is the use of polar coordinates with angular velocity versus Cartesian coordinates with linear velocity.
If you are considering the angular velocity of a particle on a circle, you can measure it’s angular velocity as the number of radians of change along the circumference of the circle per second. That’s because their is a direct relationship between the radial line’s angle with the x-axis and the number of radians along the circumference.
There are 6.26 radians in a circumference and if the circumference is 100 cms, one radian = 15.9 cms/radian. One radian is the length of the radius of the circle and cuts out an angle of about 57.3 degrees on the curcumference.
If the particle has an angular velocity of 1 radian/sec it is moving at a velocity of 15.9 cms/sec. There is no difference between that velocity on the circle and the velocity along a straight line.
With a rigid body it is essentially the same. A rigid body rotating about an axis in a circular orbit, like the Moon about the Earth’s axis, can be measured by the angular velocity in two ways. In one way, the rate of change of the angle between a radial line from the axis to the rigid body and the x-axis. The other way is by treating the body as a particle and calculating its angular velocity about the axis.
The angle between the radial line and the x-axis can be translated to displacement on the circumference of the circle that is the same as linear displacement. One radian equals 57.3 degrees approx. The radian can be converted to cms or inches by dividing the circumference by 2pi = 6.28.
Therefore, the centre of mass of the rigid body rotating in a circle with radius, r, can be stated in cms/second, inches/sec. metres/sec, or whateever you like.
A metre/sec is a metre/sec whether on a straight line or a curved line.
Hilarious.
Gordon,
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick
You can write equations for linear velocity in either Cartesian coordinates or polar coordinates, and similarly, you can write equations for angular velocity in either Cartesian coordinates or polar coordinates.
As an exercise in a “math” class I had to take for my major, we had to convert equations from one coordinate system to the other.
Just so you know Gordon,
JD was going to show me equations that show that all points on the moon have the same linear velocity.
Difficult task that one.
Okay bob, here is my statement: “All points on Moon have the same linear velocity.”
You have agreed to not comment on this blog for 90 days, if I show why that is true.
Do you now confirm that agreement?
(Many clowns can’t be trusted to do what they say they will do. Norman, Bindidon, and others can’t refrain from commenting, even after they stated they would stop.)
You are on JD,
If you can show that all points on the moon have the same linear velocity, I will leave the blog and not post for 90 days.
bob, the original deal was for both you and DA to agree. DA has backed out. I am willing to continue with just you, but make sure you know what you are agreeing to.
If I explain that all parts of Moon have the same linear velocity, you agree to not comment here for 90 days. You may not understand my explanation, but you still must not comment. I can show you, but I cannot force you to accept reality.
So, just so you can’t weasel out, if you accept this deal you are not commenting for 90 days, regardless of your inability to understand the relative physics, or accept reality.
Do you agree?
JD,
Yes I agree, but remember you promised to show math and if I find errors in the math the deal is off.
OK?
Ok bob, we’ll see….
Here it is, step by step:
1) Moon has an instantaneous angular momentum, relative to Earth, = rmv.
2) That corresponds to a linear momentum = mv.
3) Since linear momentum acts on all parts of the mass, the instantaneous velocity of any part of the moon is “v”.
Or, simpler, if you understand vector algebra, one of the vectors acting on the moon is due to its linear velocity, V. Distributed over the entire object, each part then has the same linear velocity.
Piece of cake.
JD,
The only thing you got right was “piece of cake”
It took less than two seconds to find a crucial error in your “proof”
To get from rmv to mv you have to multiply by the distance from the center r to change angular velocity to linear velocity.
Epic fail
239,000 miles average orbital distance
2159 miles diameter
So the far side goes 1,507,699 miles per revolution
and the near side goes 1,494,141 miles per revolution
So no, all parts of the moon do not move at the same velocity.
bob, the “r” is distance to center of mass. You would have to know physics to know that.
But, this exercise was just to prove you cannot live up to what you claim. I already knew you didn’t have a clue about the relevant physics.
As you have now proved that you are a clown, a troll, and unable to standby your own agreements, you might see this comment again….
JD,
I said “distance from center,” you can’t even read.
As I expected, you screwed up the math, if you can’t handle algebra, how can you handle the relevant physics.
You still haven’t shown angular velocity is equal to linear velocity.
And now your panties are all in a bunch
“1) Moon has an instantaneous angular momentum, relative to Earth, = rmv.”
Well only if moon is a point mass at r. Its not.
“2) That corresponds to a linear momentum = mv.”
What does corresponds to mean?
“3) Since linear momentum acts on all parts of the mass, the instantaneous velocity of any part of the moon is ‘v’.”
No, cuz wrong assumption in 1, which is essentially circular logic.
Just for the record, here is JD’s original claim
“All points on Moon have the same linear velocity.”
MF didn’t even know what curvilinear translation was, just like Gordon. I gave him the correct definition, and he said no, that ain’t right.
And he has the audacity to berate others? LMAO. What a fool.
stupid…”MF didnt even know what curvilinear translation was, just like Gordon. I gave him the correct definition, and he said no, that aint right”.
Mike is intelligent, he knew you were wrong.
Like Norman, if you are not in fact Norman, you read something in a textbook and misinterpret the meaning to support your view.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-370540
Poor chimp.
NASA is a shell of what it once was. In its early stages you had intellectual giants like von Braun and Goddard involved but now it is pretty much a joke. You go visit over there and you usually see a bunch of employees sitting around reading newspapers and playing crossword puzzles. There are three employees for every job.
stephen…”NASA is a shell of what it once was. In its early stages you had intellectual giants like von Braun and Goddard involved but now it is pretty much a joke. You go visit over there and you usually see a bunch of employees sitting around reading newspapers and playing crossword puzzles. There are three employees for every job”.
*********
They get away with it due to interference from supporters like Al Gore in the US government. Even though the Obama admin has been gone for more than two years, there are sympathizers in places like NASA and NOAA fighting the new government policies.
When NOAA was ordered to hand over documentation regarding their activities that lead to them claiming warming from 1998 – 2012, when the IPCC had claimed there was none, NOAA refused to cooperate. Those failing to follow the order should have been jailed and that suggests complicity in the judicial system.
mickey…”You wrote to NASA?”
Of course. NASA consults with me regularly. GISS is particularly interested in my view that a trace gas could not possibly cause catatrophic warming/climate change.
Gordo,
Not sure I understand what a pseudo orbit is. Relative to the axis one point of the concentric circle or circles is facing the axis then approximately 14 days later a different point of the circle is facing the axis. That constitutes rotation in my book.
Stephen, to understand the Moon issue, you need to learn the two motions involved. And a prerequisite is to understand a racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis on an oval track.
Do you understand that the racehorse is not rotating?
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
“Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the arrows on the right. “
Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the arrows on the left.
For some reason it’s incredibly difficult for some people to even understand that. People like David and blob demonstrate that they just don’t get it. Not understand and disagree. They actually don’t understand it!
Yeah we don’t see diagram on the right because it has never been observed.
you have to show plausible examples of what you think my position is, not never observed hypotheticals.
See?
bob wants plausible examples for his position?
Believing the racehorse is rotating on its axis is NOT a plausible position. Poor bob is stuck with an implausible position.
Nothing new.
Nope,
Here is my position, the racehorse is rotating on its axis because that is what I observe, not what I “believe.”
I observe the racehorse turning on its axis once for each time it runs around the track.
blob, the “Spinners” definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the arrows on the right.
If you don’t like that, change “sides”.
Ok, but your position is that on the right the moon is rotating counterclockwise or some such drivel.
Can you find me an example of a moon orbiting another body in such a fashion?
“Ok”
Finally. Thank you.
In answer to your question: no, there are no known examples of a moon moving as per the arrows on the right.
bob, you can’t think for yourself. You “believe” because that is what Institutionalized Pseudoscience tells you to believe. Look at your own words:
“I observe the racehorse turning on its axis once for each time it runs around the track.”
That is what you would observe from OUTSIDE the track. But inside the track, you would only see one side of the horse. The horse is not actually rotating on its axis. It is changing directions due to the forces acting on it. Same motion as Moon.
JD,
Same racehorse, same track, same observer, but from different locations I observe the horse not rotating from inside the track, and rotating from outside the track.
OK you are deluded now for sure man, can you pass me the bong.
Where’s your math?
bob d…”Here is my position, the racehorse is rotating on its axis because that is what I observe, not what I “believe.””
Some people observe the Sun rise in the East, move across the sky, then set in the West. Many believe that to be true.
Capiche?
Gordon,
Yes and that observation leads to the understanding that what causes that is the rotation of the earth.
…and the observation that the Earth doesn’t move across the lunar sky?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-368166
DREMPT,
But it does, remember that there are places on the moon where the earth rises and sets.
The earth does not hang motionless in the lunar sky.
Not according to Dr Spencer’s article:
“7) The Earth is always in the same part of the lunar sky”
“…or nearly so…” he clarifies.
stephen…”Not sure I understand what a pseudo orbit is.”
Stephen…I made it up to suggest particles making up the Moon are part of the overall orbit of the entire mass. With a rigid body, you cannot treat individual particles on their own and I needed to demonstrate that particles making up the near face, the centre, and the far face, were moving in concentric orbits.
Having established that, I wanted to fill in all points between to show that all particle on the Moon along the radial line from Earth’s centre through the lunar centre are also turning in concetric pseudo-orbits.
Of course, they are not, so I called them pseudo-orbits. The overall point is to show that particles turning in concentric orbits cannot cross over to perform local rotation about the axis.
The Moon turns as it orbits due to the gravitational field through which it passes. That field causes the entire lunar mass to rotate with a radial line from Earth’s centre representing the gravitational field.
Spinners are deceived into thinking it turns due to a local angular momentum. If it did that, however, the Moon’s near face would break with the radial line as it turned through 360 degrees. Half way through the orbit we’d see the dark side.
I wonder… if an alien race evolved on a habitable moon tidally locked to a planet, what incorrect assumptions would they initially make about planetary motion considering no telescopes early on. Would it be easier for them to realize how everything works or harder? A large planet hanging in the same location of the sky would most likely provide that species some insight that we didn’t have that you are not the center of the universe.
Scott R
A great comment; I’m especially agreeing to
“A large planet hanging in the same location of the sky would most likely provide that species some insight that we didn’t have that you are not the center of the universe.”
scott r…”Would it be easier for them to realize how everything works or harder?”
Look at us here on Earth, even with telescopes. People observing Mercury were bafflegabbed for years as to why, in certain parts of Earth’s orbit, Mercury appeared to be moving forward, then backed up (retrograde motion) only to go forward again.
Some had the temerity to propose that Mercury had a loop in its orbit, where it looped in a circle before continuing its orbit. Finally, someone got it that the retrograde motion was an illusion due to relative motion.
It wasn’t Einstein who noted that, although his GRT theory confirmed the relative motion issue.
What do you expect? He’s a leftist propagandist. That’s what they do.
DA is the leftist propagandist I was referring to.
Stephen P Anderson
As some think of me to be of the same vein (!!!), this was indeed an indispensable specification (smiley).
You’re an European Socialist ideolog. Wouldn’t necessarily classify you as a propagandist.
Great. That’s reassuring.
NASA? NASA? Are you out there?
stupid…”You are a complete and utter imbecile. And I am being kind when I say that”.
I am accepting your frustration as conceding defeat.
You have finally reached the stage where you are incapable of responding with a coherent, intelligent, scientific argument.
Your recent contradiction of the definition of curvilinear translation, with the ridiculous claim that motion is not translation, only adds to your misunderstanding of basic physics.
You and Norman have such similar responses it seems obvious you are Norman.
Gordon snorts:
“Your recent contradiction of the definition of curvilinear translation, with the ridiculous claim that motion is not translation, only adds to your misunderstanding of basic physics.”
The clown Gordon continues to make stuff up. An object can be performing curvilinear motion, but not be performing curvilinear translation, which is what I said.
Of course you will not understand this because you are an idiot.
stupid…”The clown Gordon continues to make stuff up. An object can be performing curvilinear motion, but not be performing curvilinear translation, which is what I said”.
Yeah, and your wrong. Motion and translation are the same thing when used with curvilinear.
“A particle moving along a curved path undergoes curvilinear motion.”
[http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/e110/Lecture%20Notes%20for%20Sections%2012-4%20-%2012-5.pdf]
In the same reference source as above:
“Translation: Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion. When all points move along straight lines, the motion is called rectilinear translation. When the paths of motion are curved lines, the motion is called curvilinear translation.”
[http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/e110/Lecture%20Notes%20for%20Sections%2016-1%20-%2016-3.pdf]
Same reference source, but a distinction is made between curvilinear motion and curvilinear translation.
More often than not, curvilinear motion applies to particle motion rather than rigid body motion, but not always.
Wikipedia defines curvilinear motion as “the motion of an object moving in a curved path”.
The point being, an object can move on a curved path, but not be translational. A race car on a circular track is curvlinear motion, but is not curvilinear translation, because it does not meet any of the conditions for curvilinear translation:
1. The object cannot change orientation.
2. A line through the object must remain parallel to its original position (or direction)
3. All points in the body move with the same velocity.
None of those are true for a race car.
The following reference shows an object undergoing curvilinear translation, but NOT changing orientation:
[http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/fall2017/201/phy201_lect17_handout.pdf]
Your problem is you don’t understand what curvilinear translation is, never have, probably never will.
stupid…”it does not meet any of the conditions for curvilinear translation:
1. The object cannot change orientation.
2. A line through the object must remain parallel to its original position (or direction)
3. All points in the body move with the same velocity”.
********
1)Where did you get that bs about orientation?
2)is not possible on a curve for a line to remain parallel to its original position.
The definition does not say ‘line’ it says all parts must move parallel to their original positions. That is possible on a curve.
3)on a rigid body, that moves on a curve, that means all points on the rigid body move with the same angular velocity. That means further that all points must complete a revolution in the same time.
Your understanding of angular velocity for a rotating rigid body is wrong because you are considering individual particle motion and not the entire body as a mass.
Gordon squeals:
“1)Where did you get that bs about orientation?”
Not bs. See the following definition and reference:
“Translational motion: The orientation of the object is
unchanged during the motion.”
[http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/fall2017/201/phy201_lect17_handout.pdf]
It would help if you actually looked at the references I post. The above also shows an an illustration where an object is translating on a curve while maintaining the same orientation. These varied definitions are all consistent with each other. If a body does not change its orientation while moving along a curve, any line in that body will be parallel to the original position of that line, and the velocity of any point of the object will be the same.
Gordon ponders:
“The definition does not say line it says all parts must move parallel to their original positions.”
Wrong.
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Gordon says:
“on a rigid body, that moves on a curve, that means all points on the rigid body move with the same angular velocity.”
Gordon, I keep telling you, for TRANSLATION, the requirement is that the “velocities” of every point on the body must be equal. NOT angular velocities:
“Note, all points in a rigid body subjected to translation move
with the same velocity and acceleration.”{page 10)
[http://facstaff.cbu.edu/~pshiue/Courses/ME202/Notes/Ch16_1_16_3.pdf]
Gordon squawks:
“Your understanding of angular velocity for a rotating rigid body is wrong because you are considering individual particle motion and not the entire body as a mass.”
Gordon. We are not talking about a rotating rigid body. We are talking about a rigid body that translates along a curve. As it states in my first reference above, “in translation there is no rotation of any line in a body.” You keep insisting on using angular velocity as a condition of curvilinear translation. That is wrong. For translation, “the velocities of every point on the body must be equal”. And that is simply not true for a race car on a circular track. The outside edge of the car is at a radius greater than the inside edge of the car. That means the outside edge of the car is moving faster than the inside edge. Therefor the velocities are not equal and translation is not occurring.
A coherent, intelligent, scientific argument.
…and still besides the point.
Someone asked for the mathematics concerned with the orbit of the moon, and its orientation.
Simplifying things a bit, the radius of the Moon’s orbit is about 240,000 miles. It takes about 29 days to go around the Earth.
In one second the Moon falls about one twentieth of one inch towards the Earth due to the force of gravity, which is reduced due the operation of the inverse square law, from about 16 feet per second at the Earth’s surface, to about 1/3600 of 16 feet, which is roughly 1/20 of an inch. Where does the 1/3600 come from? The Moon is about 60 times as far from the centre of the earth as the surface, so the force of gravity is about 3600 times less.
In one second, the Moon drops about one twentieth of an inch below the tangent to where it was one second before, derived from its observed orbit.
The Moon is continuously falling towards the Earth, but travels at such a speed that the fall due to gravity is exactly compensated by the fact that that the curvature of the Earth means that the surface is receding from the falling Moon as fast as the moon is falling toward it, due to the forward velocity of the Moon.
A falling body does not rotate without a torque inducing force. In other words, if the Moon fell directly on you, you would be squashed by the same face you see when you look at the Moon. At all times it is falling straight down, under the influence of gravity. No rotation.
And yes, I have simplified much. If you want to be more precise, do so. Definitions of translation and movement change the facts not one whit.
All that is necessary is knowledge of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, Newton’s Laws of Motion and accurate observations of the Moon’s orbit. I apologise if I have not been clear enough, and for not using metric units. I am assuming most of the commenters adhere to common American usage. Convert if you wish.
Cheers.
Mike…what I take away from it all is the resultant path created as an orbit between the Moon’s momentum and the Earth’s gravitational field.
If you used vectors to represent the velocity in the Moon’s momentum and the acceleration of the gravitational field, at right angles, the velocity vector would have to be significantly longer than than the gravity vector.
If you look at the resultant orbital path, the angle between it and the velocity vector is small. That means the orbital path is influenced most by the Moon’s momentum. If the momentum effect was equal to the gravitational effect, the Moon would break orbit and crash into the Earth.
In other words, the Moon’s momentum has a critical value for its present orbit.
Since the angle between the orbital path and the velocity vector is small, and gravitational force is acting right across the near face, the Moon changes direction slightly to align with the gravitational field. That keeps the near face pointing to the Earth, with all points lined up behind the near face moving in concentric circles.
Over the course of a full orbit, the Moon is inched gradually around the orbit changing it’s orientation slightly at each instant. That’s what causes it to change orientation wrt to the background stars, not local rotation.
I think it’s exactly the same as swinging a ball on a rope around your head. Not the same orbit, obviously, but the same principle.
‘the Moon changes direction slightly to align with the gravitational field.’
Yes.
‘That keeps the near face pointing to the Earth’
‘the Moon is inched gradually around the orbit changing its orientation slightly at each instant.’
Nope. Why should it?
Where is the torque needed coming from? Pls show how gravity applies torque.
Only happens if its orientation is ALREADY changing due to spin.
N,
You might be missing the point. The Moon is falling towards the Earth continuously. No torque. There is only one force acting on the Moon – the force of gravity. This is directed at all times towards the centre of gravity of the Earth, fairly obviously.
It took someone with the particular genius of Newton to realise this, so don’t be too surprised if the concept doesn’t seem to make sense at first.
Extremely intelligent people prior to Newton didn’t realise what was happening.
It only appears that the Moon is rotating – something like an aircraft flying round the Earth at a fixed altitude appears to be changing its orientation when viewed from a certain perspective. You no doubt appreciate that Antipodean people are not actually walking upside down.
GR’s rope and ball analogy is reasonable. No torque on the ball, it moves in an orbit, and the same face faces the source of the force, whether you choose centrifugal or centripetal force as your preference, although centrifugal force is often called an “apparent” force.
Newton’s Laws are all you need, and only one force is involved – the force of gravity.
Cheers.
“I think it’s exactly the same as swinging a ball on a rope around your head. Not the same orbit, obviously, but the same principle.”
Ah, so you’re not arguing that gravity applies a torque to the moon’s axis, in fact quite the opposite – since there is nothing to produce a torque about the moon’s axis, it’s effectively “held in place” like a ball on a string! The moon’s momentum and Earth’s gravity combine to create the “swinging” motion of the “ball” about the Earth itself. That clears that up then.
The main point of the first Tesla article, as the editor notes, is that balls attached to spokes on a wheel are not rotating on their own axes. If they are rotating they should contain extra rotational energy, and Tesla offers ‘proof’ that they don’t.
Here is what he says
“imagine a number of balls M carried by as many spokes S radiating from a hub H, as illustrated in Fig. 2, and let this system be rotated n times per second around center O on frictionless bearings. A certain amount of work will be required to bring the structure to this speed, and it will be found that it equals exactly half the product of the masses with the square of the tangential velocity. Now if it be true that the moon rotates in reality on its axis this must also hold good for EACH of the balls as it performs the same kind of movement. Therefore, in imparting to the system a given velocity, energy must have been used up in the axial rotation of the balls. Let M be the mass of one of these and R the radius of gyration, then the rotational energy will be E = M (2 π R n)2.”
So far so good. But do note. Radius of gyration is not the same as the the radius of the center of mass, Rcm. It is defined as:
‘Radius of gyration or gyradius of a body about an axis of rotation is defined as the radial distance of a point from the axis of rotation at which, if whole mass of the body is assumed to be concentrated, its moment of inertia about the given axis would be the same as with its actual distribution of mass.’
“Since for one complete turn of the wheel every ball makes one revolution on its axis, according to the prevailing theory, the energy of axial rotation of each ball will be e = M (2 π r1 n)2, r1 being the radius of gyration about the axis and equal to 0.6325 r. We can use as large balls as we like, and so make e a considerable percentage of E and yet, it is positively established by experiment that each of the rotating balls contain only the energy E, no power whatever being consumed in the supposed axial rotation, which is, consequently, wholly illusionary. ”
Now this is misleading, actually its WRONG.
His implication is that the ‘prevailing theory’ would be
E = 1/2M (2piRg n)^2 + e
which is of course wrong, because the first term already contains translational AND rotational energy. When he used radius of gyration, he is using a radius a bit larger than the Rcm, that is intended to account for all of the rotational inertia (and energy) of the object. See parallel axis therorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_axis_theorem
The correct theory is
E = 1/2M(2piRcm n)^2 + e = 1/2M(Vcm)^2 + 1/2 I(ball) Omega^2
Contrary to his claim that E is all translational energy, only the first term is translational energy.
“Something even more interesting may, however, be stated. As I have shown before, a ball flying off will rotate at the rate of the wheel and in the same direction.”
Yes, as does the Moon in the orbit simulator.
“But this whirling motion, unlike that of a projectile, neither adds to, nor detracts from, the energy of the translatory movement which is exactly equal to the work consumed in giving to the mass the observed velocity.”
Now that is awfully weird and contradictory, because a whirling motion contains energy.
The energy of the translatory movement of the sphere flying off is in fact 1/2MVcm^2 which is his E – e.
The whirling motion contains energy e, the rotational energy it had in orbit.
To summarize, he claimed that the balls on spokes contained no axial rotational energy, only translational energy.
But his expression for translational energy, E, is wrong.
They balls do contain rotational energy, e, which is why they rotate as they fly off.
No contradiction.
nate…at least you are willing to stand up and claim Tesla is wrong. I don’t agree but I respect you for making the claim.
I have been intending to read his article and work through it but have not done so as yet.
Thanks, Gordon.
Before you decide you don’t agree, maybe work through it. His relevant quotes are in the post.
Nate
Many thanks for your sober, helpful explanations.
A ball rigidly attached to a spoke is no more able to rotate on its own axis than are the atoms comprising the piece of floor within a chalk circle drawn on the edge of a carousel able to rotate about an “axis” in the center of the chalk circle.
So the parallel axis theorem, when applied to the balls on the spokes; though it may give you an answer in an abstract mathematical sense that there is axial rotation of the balls; it clearly is not physically possible!
And which in turn, is why Tesla said results from the theorem were “still more remote from palpable truth” in the very next paper.
I hope that is sober and helpful enough, Bindidon.
Dr Em T screeches:
“So the parallel axis theorem, when applied to the balls on the spokes; though it may give you an answer in an abstract mathematical sense that there is axial rotation of the balls; it clearly is not physically possible!”
Dr Em T discovers an object does not rotate wrt a reference frame rotating at the same angular velocity as the object itself. Brilliant, Einstein. The Tesla Editor came to the same brilliant conclusion.
Wrong. The balls are fixed to the spokes so that is physically impossible for them to rotate on their own axes. So they are not rotating on their own axes in any reference frame.
They are rotating wrt the inertial reference frame, Einstein.
This is what happens when amateurs attempt to dabble in physics.
So a clown, like Dr Em T, is standing on the center of one of those playground merry-go-rounds. His feet are glued to the floor of the merry go round. The merry-go-round is spinning. So I guess the clown is not rotating on his own axis, according to clown physics.
The balls are firmly attached to the end of the spokes.
Are the spokes rotating on their own axes, HGS?
Glue a small peg to the top of one of the balls. Standing in one place, grasp the peg lightly between your fingers and make the ball system with the spokes rotate (like cranking a crank). You will observe the peg rotating between your finders, which means the ball is also rotating about its own axis.
The clown standing at the center of a spinning merry-go-round, with his feet glued to the floor. Is he spinning or not?
finders=fingers
The balls are firmly attached to the end of the spokes.
Are the spokes rotating on their own axes, HGS?
Or are the spokes, with the balls on the end, rotating about the center of the device?
Glue a peg to the middle of a spoke and do the same thing.
Is the clown standing on the center of the spinning merry go round with his feet glued down rotating on his own axis?
He’s actually prepared to argue the spokes are rotating on their own axes as well!
The ball and rod will continue to rotate if disconnected from the center or orbit. The ball will continue to rotate if disconnected from the rod. If there was no ball on the end of the rod, the rod will continue to rotate if disconnected from the center of orbit. Newton’s laws of motion.
Now, clown, about that other clown with his feet glued to the center of a spinning merry-go-round. I am sorry you are too confused to answer the question.
…and when attached, the spokes, and balls, are not rotating on their own axes, from any frame of reference.
You can answer your own question, its not hard…and your only intent is to obfuscate something that is otherwise clear and straightforward, in any case.
There is no shame in not being able to answer the clown merry-go-round question. Well………..actually there is, but who’s counting? That would be me.
OK, HGS.
So the guys have tried throwing everything at the wall, nothing sticks, not even appeal to Tesla’s authority, and finally math doesnt matter.
Now we’re back to its JUST NOT POSSIBLE.
In other words, we’re just going to declare our own facts.
N,
As Newton pointed out, the Moon has but one force acting upon it – the force of gravity. Given this force, the resultant simple calculation agrees with the observed motion of the Moon.
If you disagree, maybe you could demonstrate where Newton erred. I have provided admittedly simplified calculations previously, using only one force, which agree with observed fact.
I don’t believe you need any additional forces, and if you introduce nay, the result will not match observations. Give it a try, if you like.
Cheers.
Mike,
Newton’s been quoted many times here. Read it. He talks about the Moon rotating and why it is needed.
“A ball rigidly attached to a spoke is no more able to rotate on its own axis”
If the argument is now going to be all about what things are attached to, well, then the moon is not attached to anything so…it can be rotating about its axis.
Point is to describe MOTION, attachment is a red herring.
Tesla made an argument based on math and formulas. You accept all that.
I point out an error, and you say that somehow, some way it doesnt matter because its only math.
Weird.
” it clearly is not physically possible!”
Of course it is, and that is what the math shows. As does the fact that when a spoke is cut, the ball flies off rotating, as Tesla agreed.
Bindidon’s gone very uncharacteristically quiet. Perhaps he’s realized that thinking the atoms comprising the floor in a chalk circle drawn at the edge of a carousel are rotating about an axis in the center of that chalk circle, just because the carousel is rotating, is a bit silly.
DREMT
I’m not quiet at all, and my meaning did not change even by a bit.
I say
– Newton is right;
– I have presented his work concerning Moon’s rotation about its axis (Principia, Prop. XVII Theor. XV) without any change, let alone manipulation.
The denialist crew says
– Newton is right;
BUT ALSO
– The Moon does NOT rotate about its axis.
– Bindidon misrepresents Newton’s work.
Especially your trial to misuse John Lucey’s description of Moon’s orbiting as a proof that Moon does not rotate about its axis (simply because the page does not refer to it) is really disingenuous.
Huffman’s trial to misuse the notion of ‘upper’ (or ‘exterior’) focus as a proof that Moon would not rotate about its axis is not disingenuous: it is simply dumb. (Look upthread for his comment, that’s your job.)
Yours and Huffman’s endless trials to discredit Newton’s text using the ‘fixed stars’ pseudoargument are dumb as well.
Last not least, Robertson’s trials to pretend that Newton’s Latin sources led to amiguous English translations
” I think the translation from Latin has been so poor that the translator used the word rotation out of context.”
is incredible. (“I THINK” !!!!!).
But so are the denialists, DREMT…
I’m sad of all your lies and contradictions.
For me, again, the case is closed with
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-370095
You can continue your simple-minded manipulations as long as you want.
*
Above you wrote:
“Perhaps he’s realized that thinking the atoms comprising the floor in a chalk circle drawn at the edge of a carousel are rotating about an axis in the center of that chalk circle, just because the carousel is rotating, is a bit silly.”
You perfectly know that I have nothing to do with your carousels, racehorses, coins and other cannonballs.
READ NEWTON.
So…back to the same old, same old and nothing on what I just explained. OK then.
I was hoping for more discussion on the best location for a Moon colony that will need to find “Resources” such as water and minerals.
A colony cannot live by energy alone…….
cam…”I was hoping for more discussion on the best location for a Moon colony that will need to find Resources such as water and minerals”.
I’d like to comment more on Roy’s article along the lines you suggest but despite decades of studying the Moon closely we know dick all about it. I am not much on speculation.
I found Roy’s article interesting and thought-provoking but heck, we’re still trying to figure out if the Moon rotates about its own axis. If that’s such a stumper, think of the alleged occurrences in the universe, like Big Bangs, black holes, proto-planets, etc. We haven’t the slightest idea what we’re talking about.
Except of course, for those who think the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
When I entered a course in astrophysics decades ago, I don’t know why I thought we’d be discussing something interesting. It was boring, we know hardly anything about the stars let alone the universe. I was more interested in the ‘names’ of Jupiter’s Moons, like Io. Gannymede, Europa, and Callista.
I thought the stars might prove interesting, but no. They are big gas-bags like Myki, Norman, stupid, and other alarmists and all we did was calculate their brightness and study spectra from radio-telescopes. It was a bummer that optical telescopes were hardly used for studying stars.
We had very little to discuss about the Moon. and it’s right next door.
gallopingcamel
This is at least your second asking about it.
My reply won’t change that much.
AFAIR, you were busy with building synchroton hardware (I remember the incredibly stupid replies to your comments so intelligibly explaining why magnets must be designed according to relativistic principles rather than to Newton’s, if they are to guide particles moving in orbits at almost the speed of light).
I’m wondering why such an experienced person like you prefers to escape out of all we have already:
– water in indescriptible quantities in Antarctica;
– minerals dito at sea ground for example.
What is for me amazing is the fact that nobody thinking about such strange projects would even spend some thoughts about the major problem, which is probably much more complex than all the rest, namely reentering the atmosphere with huge spacecrafts full of this water and / or minerals.
Everybody perfectly reminds how problematic it is to come back from no farer than the ISS! You need no more than a handful of heat protection tiles damaged during the departure, and… BANG! BANG!!
GC, I apologise: I don’t understand how you can even think a femtosecond about such a chimera. Sorry.
Rgds,
J.-P.
binny…”AFAIR, you were busy with building synchroton hardware (I remember the incredibly stupid replies to your comments so intelligibly explaining why magnets must be designed according to relativistic principles rather than to Newtons”
Do you have slightest idea what you’re talking about?
How do you design a magnet for relativity? Maybe the placement of the magnet?
I asked cam to reconsider what he had concluded about time dilation. I asked him to look for an alternate explanation in the forces and masses that affect displacement hence relative motion.
Robertson
“How do you design a magnet for relativity? Maybe the placement of the magnet?”
You must have drunk too much alcohol during your life: that’s mostly the best explanation for a behavior like yours, that of people only able to recall what they imagined, but never what they read.
Here is one of these proofs of your mix of ignorance and arrogance:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-320235
@Gordon Robertson,
Einstein made that mistake, substituting acceleration for gravitational force and it lead him into a delusion about physical bodies changing length and time dilating as one neared the speed of light.
While building the Duke FEL (Free Electron Laser) in 1995 we used 40 bending magnets to create a closed orbit for 1 GeV electrons. If we believed Newtons F = ma the magnets would have been set at 5 Gauss.
In order for our synchrotron to work the magnets were set to 10,000 Gauss as predicted by Einsteins General Theory of Relativity. How does one explain the need for magnets to be 2,000 times more powerful than Newtonian mechanics predicted?
According to Einstein the velocity of light is a constant in non-rotating reference frames and that means mass, length and time have to be variables.
Look at your own answer below in the thread I linked to!
Incredible. Your are such a boaster.
–gallopingcamel says:
August 1, 2019 at 10:21 PM
I was hoping for more discussion on the best location for a Moon colony that will need to find “Resources” such as water and minerals.
A colony cannot live by energy alone…….–
Here a plan of colony/base:
https://denniswingo.wordpress.com/2019/07/25/chicken-egg-chicken-on-the-moon/
But I think NASA should determine if and where there is mineable lunar water AND then explore Mars.
And I think mineable water is what NASA should look for on Mars.
I don’t think NASA should plan on making a lunar base, but NASA should plan on building a Mars base.
In order for there to be settlements on Mars, Mars colonies need cheap water.
People generally use about 1000 tons of water per year, and this high cost of living if water is expensive.
I have personal opinion that Mars colonies could live in a Mars lake.
Sort of sort Field of Dreams, if you build a Mars lake, people will come to Mars.
One could argue, that people might not want to live underwater in a Lake on Mars. BUT at least, people will want to live near a lake on Mars. So if Mars has a liquid lake, that is where people will want to go.
Of course there is the thorny issue, or technical question of:
Can you build a lake on Mars?
Well, let’s begin with something more impossible/difficult, can build a lake on the Moon?
No one should argue that if put a dome over a lake, you can’t have a lake on the Moon.
And the question is, how little air pressure is needed in the dome. 1/2 psi is enough.
But I would say it could be less pressure than 1/2 psi of pressure and that it could pressure similar to air pressure of Mars.
The air pressure on Mars is about 1/100th of Earth sea level:
14.7 / 100 = .147 psi
So say .2 psi should be enough.
One of course can have frozen lake on Mars or the Moon.
One Earth if have 1 ton per square meter of ice that similar to 1 ton of water per square meter.
10 meter depth of water equals 14.7 psi [1 atm}
1 meter depth is 1.47 psi
This is related to Earth’s gravity.
Roughly Moon is 1/6th and Mars 1/3rd of Earth gravity
1.47 / 6 = .245 psi under 1 ton per square of ice on the Moon
1.47 / 3 = .49 psi under 1 ton per square of ice on the Mars.
So on Moon if lake had 1 meter of ice at surface, one could have liquid water under the ice. Or liquid water at surface if dome had air pressure of .245 psi.
Or dome air pressure of .1 psi, with less frozen ice at surface.
Now idea with Mars is not to have dome over the lake. Or you want a big lake and don’t want to have big dome over it.
You could have frozen lake and small domes on frozen lake.
But going for harder aspect of liquid surface lake- but if has less inch of ice on the surface, I don’t think this problem or issue. Or I would count lake which at night ice forming on is as not disqualifying as far as roughly calling a liquid surface lake.
Nor is it “cheating” to use ice as structural material- if want to make dome make of ice which are above the liquid lake- that does change that one essentially have a liquid lake. Or one have plastic domes sticking out of the surface of the lake.
And also if had lake with 1 meter thick ice on it, settlers could envision a future than has near ice-less lake.
So as practical matter the lake could start out with frozen surface, and one might see the frozen ice as useful rather than a problem, but have future “plans”.
I will add that, it would a good thing if bunch people living Mars made “lots” water vapor “pollution”.
So, hundreds even thousands of lakes with lots of water vapor pollution.
I don’t think if you make the Red planet look like Snowball Mars, that this is “bad” or makes Mars colder.
Also think it’s possible that Mars has a lot more water than what most people suspect.
For instance Mars having more accessible fresh water, than Earthling currently have access to fresh water.
And maybe 10 times more.
And water on Mars can be cheaper than water on Earth.
But in beginning water on Mars has to be much more expensive than Earth.
Earthlings use or involved with using billions of tonnes of water per year.
Before Martians are using millions of tons per year, water will cost a lot more on Mars.
I saying when Martian are consuming/using/recycling about 1 billion tonnes of water per year, then Mars water could be cheaper than Earth water is now. So cheaper in say 100 years from now, but in hundred years from now, Earth water might also cheaper than it is currently.
So I mean Mars water in the future could be cheaper than Earth water currently is.
But I don’t know if Mars is a viable place for human settlements, I also don’t know if the Moon has mineable water.
But I think NASA should explore the Moon and Mars to determine if and where there is mineable water in space environment.
And NASA should done this decades ago. But I am still hopeful that NASA will do this soon. But if NASA fails, I am also hopeful others will do this. I think, if NASA does it soon, it could save many lives. And, NASA will still exist, and will involved with exploring the stars.
How on earth (or how on the moon) did they manage to cope with temperatures of 250F?
Can we replicate the cooling system that they had? Their batteries must have been incredibly powerful, and the heat exchanger pretty amazing too. On earth, dont we need air to take away the excess heat from an air conditioning system? How did they radiate all of that excess heat away?
dave…”On earth, dont we need air to take away the excess heat from an air conditioning system?”
The heated compressed and liquefied gas is vented to the atmosphere, but wouldn’t the -273C of space do? It might raise the background radiation used to justify the Big Bang, but what the heck.
D,
From Wikipedia –
“Because the space environment is essentially a vacuum, heat cannot be lost through heat convection, and can only be directly dissipated through thermal radiation, a much slower process.”
Actually, heat is only lost through the emission of photons. Convection, conduction and all the rest are just convenient and useful terms.
You will notice a domestic incandescent light goes dark very quickly when the power is turned off. The filament loses heat by radiation through a vacuum – very quickly.
There is plenty of information available on the Internet, much of it incorrect in one way or another.
Cheers.
–Dave says:
August 2, 2019 at 7:11 AM
How on earth (or how on the moon) did they manage to cope with temperatures of 250F?
Can we replicate the cooling system that they had?–
Sure, it’s not impossible to make vacuum similar to the Moon’s.
And in such vacuum water evaporates and cools to about -100 F
I will also note that human being cool mostly by evaporating water
and 250 F [121 C] is a bit hot, but Finnish sauna goers do about 100 C for few minutes.
Also on Earth sunlight heats to about 70 to 80 C, but air temperature doesn’t get much over about 50 C.
So with sunlight heating to about 250 F, and in spacesuit which cooled by evaporation to vacuum, it’s not hard nor do you lose much water.
Or vacuum environment allows it, and since Mercury is also a moon like vacuum, one do it on Mercury also.
Just so you know I’m not making it up:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
“Still more remote from palpable truth is the equation of motion obtained in the manner indicated in Fig. 4 [which refers to the parallel axis theorem] in which the first term represents the kinetic energy of translation of the body as a whole and the second that of its axial rotation. The former would demand a movement of the mass in a definite path and direction, all particles having the same velocity, the latter its simultaneous motion in another path and direction, the particles having different velocities. This abstract idea of angular motion is chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences.”
So Tesla had those two articles published in The Electrical Experimenter a magazine edited by Hugo Gernsback.
You know the guy the Hugo awards were named after because he edited science fiction magazines.
Possibly because real journals such as the Astrophysical Journal, The Astonomical Journal, or even the Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society fairly laughed at him.
I would put more stock in something published by one of these guys:
George Hale (1895–1902)
Edwin Brant Frost (1902–1932)
Edwin Hubble (1932–1952)
bob d…”So Tesla had those two articles published in The Electrical Experimenter a magazine edited by Hugo Gernsback”.
So what, Bob. Tesla was a brilliant scientist, that’s all I care about.
If Feynman was published in the National Enquirer, a US scumbag tabloid, I’d still read him.
Gordon you are the one who says Einstein was wrong.
As far as I can tell from reading Tesla, he was unaware of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
But he did say this
“I have stated in my article that the moon rotates about an axis passing thru the center of the earth”
The point being there are two axes, one the moon rotates around and one the moon revolves around.
Already done it, already won it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-368065
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-368998
Three papers, blob.
So we are still looking for you to post a paper by an astronomer that says the moon doesn’t rotate.
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1450-5584/2013/1450-55841301135T.pdf
Top of page 142.
Except that Tomic is arguing the Moon revolves around the sun, not the earth.
And he doesn’t address the two different axes issue at all.
Just this cryptic sentence
“This is why the Moon has neither a magnetic
moment nor a rotation of its own.»”
Which doesn’t mean the Moon doesn’t rotate, it means the Moon rotates as part of the two body earth and moon system.
Not a very credible source and you still have work to do.
You need to find someone who addresses the two axes problem.
blob shifts the goalposts.
I am clarifying what Tomic says, he says the moon is rotating.
OK, blob.
DREMT
I’m sorry, but… Aleksandar Tomic is as much an astronomer as
– has been Nikola Tesla (he has no official degree at all)
and
– is Tomic’s supervisor Vujicic, who was a specialist in math and mechanics.
Vujicic’s pedigree
https://www.dr-vujicicveljko.com/uploads/1/0/6/1/106120197/about_the_author.docx
*
Tomic was involved in astronomy contexts, but is a physicist (all good with that) but has no degree in astronomy:
http://acaatomic.angelfire.com/ALEKSANDAR__TOMIC_-_CV-_06.pdf
*
So if you want to show a person out of this Belgrade context having at least a degree in astrophysics, please take Borivoje A. Jovanovic instead.
Your link shows that has a degree in physics, and another in astronomy.
Absolutely correct, I apologise.
No worries. Also I think, is that equivalent to a masters in astrophysics? I’m not familiar with the word he uses.
He endeavors, but without success.
The PA thm divides the kinetic energy of an object into a portion due to velocity of the CM, Kcm =1/2MV^2, and a portion due to rotation around the CM, Krot =1/2 I omega^2.
Tesla doesnt find anything mathematically incorrect about this, but he doesnt LIKE dividing the energy this way. He thinks it is not physically motivated.
But this is entirely a subjective feeling he has.
When he analyzes his ferris-wheel type apparatus:
With this object attention is called to Fig. 5 showing a system composed of eight balls M, which are carried on spokes S, radiating from a hub H, rotatable around a central axis O in bearings supposed to be frictionless. It is an arrangement similar to that before illustrated with the exception that the balls, instead of forming parts of the spokes, are supported in screw pivots s, which are normally loose but can be tightened so as to permit both free turning and rigid fixing as may be desired.
He shows that when the balls are free to turn on their axes like a ferris wheel:
The combined result of these two motions is a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V, which is that of its center of gravity. In this case, granted that there is absolutely no friction the kinetic energy of each ball will be given by the product of M V2 not approximately, but with mathematical rigor.
BTW, this is what we call curvilinear translation, or pure orbit.
If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible and then it is found that the kinetic energy of each ball is increased, the increment being exactly the energy of rotation of the ball on its axis. This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment
The balls are now orbiting like the Moon. But notice their energy is INCREASED, by exactly the axial rotational kinetic energy Krot =1/2 I omega^2
And exactly the amount given in the PA thm.
If one ball were now to be released from the spoke, it would fly off. With what speed?
It would fly off with speed V, the speed of the CM while in orbit. Its Kt = 1/2MV^2
Would it be spinning around its axis? Yes with the same omega it had while in orbit. Its Krot = 1/2 I omeaga^2.
So, by this analysis, he has shown that the way the PA divides the energy during orbit is the same as the way it is divided for a launched ball.
IOW it is entirely physically motivated.
His argument is not convincing.
Quotes left out, try again:
The PA thm divides the kinetic energy of an object into a portion due to velocity of the CM, Kcm =1/2MV^2, and a portion due to rotation around the CM, Krot =1/2 I omega^2.
Tesla doesnt find anything mathematically incorrect about this, but he doesnt LIKE dividing the energy this way. He thinks it is not physically motivated.
But this is entirely a subjective feeling he has.
When he analyzes his ferris-wheel type apparatus:
“With this object attention is called to Fig. 5 showing a system composed of eight balls M, which are carried on spokes S, radiating from a hub H, rotatable around a central axis O in bearings supposed to be frictionless. It is an arrangement similar to that before illustrated with the exception that the balls, instead of forming parts of the spokes, are supported in screw pivots s, which are normally loose but can be tightened so as to permit both free turning and rigid fixing as may be desired.”
He shows that when the balls are free to turn on their axes like a ferris wheel:
“The combined result of these two motions is a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V, which is that of its center of gravity. In this case, granted that there is absolutely no friction the kinetic energy of each ball will be given by the product of M V2 not approximately, but with mathematical rigor.”
BTW, this is what we call curvilinear translation, or pure orbit.
“If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible and then it is found that the kinetic energy of each ball is increased, the increment being exactly the energy of rotation of the ball on its axis. This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment”
The balls are now orbiting like the Moon. But notice their energy is INCREASED, by exactly the axial rotational kinetic energy Krot =1/2 I omega^2
And exactly the amount given in the PA thm.
If one ball were now to be released from the spoke, it would fly off. With what speed?
It would fly off with speed V, the speed of the CM while in orbit. Its Kt = 1/2MV^2
Would it be spinning around its axis? Yes with the same omega it had while in orbit. Its Krot = 1/2 I omeaga^2.
So, by this analysis, he has shown that the way the PA divides the energy during orbit is the same as the way it is divided for a launched ball.
IOW it is entirely physically motivated.
His argument is not convincing.
Gordon,
Pay attention. This is one thing Telsa gets right:
The combined result of these two motions is a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V, which is that of its center of gravity.”
He is referring to his figure 5. The balls are moving in a circular orbit, and are translating, and are not changing their orientation, and all particles have the same velocity, something you said was not possible.
Are you going to argue with Tesla, now?
Tesla’s statement again:
“The combined result of these two motions is a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V, which is that of its center of gravity.”
Gordon. The velocity he is referring to is NOT angular velocities, since he refers to angular velocities a few lines later.
In his Figure 5, place arrows along the border line between the dark half circle and light half circle on the balls. You will have the same picture as Figure 2 in JD’s dumb non-animated gif (arrows pointing to the right instead), which represents curvilinear translation, per Tesla.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
Child-Gone-Stupid, does your school bus travel upside-down?
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
When you grow up, you should revisit that MIT example problem that explained an object on an orbiting train would NOT be rotating on its axis.
When you grow up….
This is obviously way above JD’ pay grade. I’ll wait for Gordon. Right now he’s out clubbing baby seals, a Canadian pastime.
Funny how you want to stop reading after you’ve found something you like.
The uneducated child cannot understand Fig 5. But, he should get an adult to explain the last sentence of the caption: “With This Model the Fallacy of the Moon’s Rotation on Its Axle Is Demonstrable.”
JD’s squeals upthread:
“Wrong again, DA. The horse is changing directions. The motion is translational.”
Even the clown Tesla new what translation was, i.e., an object that does not change its orientation, and where the velocities on any point of the object are equal, which is not true with a horse running a circular race track.
“Child-Gone-Stupid”, you’re too fixated on twisting definitions. You can’t get away from kinematics, which does not include orbital motion. Such confusion is typical when one is over one’s head.
Just keep it simple. A racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis. A school bus is not really upside-down, as it circumnavigates the globe.
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
It’s time to grow up and try to think for yourself. You’ve got a lot to learn and you’re not getting any younger.
‘Funny how you want to stop reading after youve found something you like.’
Funny how you stop reading when people are rebutting your arguments!
‘Just keep it simple. A racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis.’
Don’t talk about grownup stuff JD can’t follow.
His bible is ‘All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten’
“Even the clown Tesla…”
Wow…erm, OK, HGS. What did the clown Tesla say?
“If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible…”
Ah, yes. With the balls rigidly attaches to the spokes, it’s physically impossible for them to rotate on their own axes! Just like I was trying to explain to you further upthread. And like I said to you, you have to read on, not just stop when you read something you like:
“If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible and then it is found that the kinetic energy of each ball is increased, the increment being exactly the energy of rotation of the ball on its axis. This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment, is the foundation of the general notion that a gyrating body — in this instance ball M — presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis in the same sense, as indicated by the short full arrow. But it does not tho to the eye it seems so. The fallacy will become manifest on further inquiry.”
Tesla’s argument is a long, complicated one, that moves on and on throughout the article. You can’t really just focus on any one section, because they are all interconnected, to some extent. You just need to read and appreciate the whole thing.
And even then, there are other things to consider besides Tesla’s arguments…
“this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible…’
Ah, yes. With the balls rigidly attaches to the spokes, it’s physically impossible for them to rotate on their own axes!”
No, only rotation RELATIVE TO THE SPOKES becomes impossible.
Both the spokes and balls are rotating.
Again, an object is either rotating or not. It matters not a bit what the object is attached to.
“Tesla’s argument is a long, complicated one, that moves on and on throughout the article. You can’t really just focus on any one section, because they are all interconnected, to some extent. You just need to read and appreciate the whole thing.”
Yep, and so far the parts that you have quoted have had flaws and are not at all convincing, as I discussed.
The rest involves dividing rotating masses into smaller parts and finding that the energy of these parts can be more and more described as translational.
This is well known. It could apply to any object, even ones rotating about their own axis as well.
By this logic nothing is rotating!
Feel free to explain which other parts are convincing to you, and why.
No response from HGS…nothing further from Bindidon. Looks like it’s just blob and Gordon left commenting now.
Ha!
IF D ignores reality he thinks it disappears.
Oh, and JD’s back too.
Tesla’s clown physics continue with his description of Figure 6. It’s a whirling ball on a string. I am sure he performed this experiment, but did not like the results. For he admits that as soon as the string is cut, the ball rotates. He actually says “begins to rotate” because he make up some bs excuse with Figure 7.
In Figure 6 the ball was ALREADY rotating on its own axis before the string was cut. The fact that it rotated AFTER the string was cut means it was rotating before the string was cut (Newton’s laws of motion), because the string cannot cause any torque to make the ball rotate, since the string acts through the ball’s center of mass.
Again, it’s physically impossible for the ball to be rotating on its own axis, when attached to the string. The ball, and string, are rotating about a central point, and the source of torque for this rotation is obvious, unless you are denying that a ball on a string can be whirled around.
Dr Clown moans:
“Again, it’s physically impossible for the ball to be rotating on its own axis, when attached to the string.”
Tesla said nothing about the impossibility of the ball rotating due to the attached string. You make the declaration, but that’s it. We already know the ball will not rotate wrt the string, Einstein. The reference frame is not the rotating string. The reference frame is the inertial reference frame, which Tesla understood, (which people who have taken physics and kinematics understand) since his declaration that the balls were exhibiting translation was wrt the inertial frame.
Dr Clown squeals:
“the source of torque for this rotation is obvious, unless you are denying that a ball on a string can be whirled around!”
The bad Doctor makes unwarranted assumptions and declarations. The connection point (center of orbit) is fixed, unmoving. The only way to perform this experiment to match the drawing is to fix the string to a solid anchor with a connection that is free to swivel. You would then proceed to force the rotation with your hand, much like a tether ball. Once you let go of the object, then it will behave as the drawing indicates, since there would be no external forces on the system. Once again, the string’s tensile force acts through the center of the ball, providing no torque. A flexible string cannot transmit torque as well.
“Tesla said nothing about the impossibility of the ball rotating due to the attached string.”
Same principle as what he said with the balls on the spokes. You just don’t pay attention to things you don’t want to hear:
“If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible…”
Then you say:
“Once again, the string’s tensile force acts through the center of the ball, providing no torque. A flexible string cannot transmit torque as well.”
Nobody is arguing that it does. Nobody is arguing that anything is producing any torque about the ball’s axis. When the ball is released, according to Tesla:
“The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
“Physically impossible”
Assertion without evidence, and if true than there would have no need to make all the other arguments.
The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different”
This is simply nonsensical. Rotation is not due to rotation!?!
“Nobody is arguing that anything is producing any torque about the balls axis.”
Sure, because you guys are confused about how rotation comes about.
You guys just think it just ‘happens’ by some magical combo of linear momentum and gravity.
Just like magical non-heat energy flows.
“The only way to perform this experiment to match the drawing is to fix the string to a solid anchor with a connection that is free to swivel. You would then proceed to force the rotation with your hand, much like a tether ball. Once you let go of the object, then it will behave as the drawing indicates, since there would be no external forces on the system. Once again, the string’s tensile force acts through the center of the ball, providing no torque. A flexible string cannot transmit torque as well.”
Pretty good description of orbital motion, by the way. The string provides no torque about the ball’s own axis, as it acts through the center of the ball, just like gravity on the moon. But give the ball linear momentum perpendicular to the string, by imparting that initial push, and away it goes.
Since you end up with rotation of the ball about the “solid anchor”, with none about the ball’s own axis, parts of the ball nearer to the string and the “solid anchor” are moving slower than parts further away. So, when the string is cut, if it were to fly off and start rotating on its own axis, then:
“The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
“But give the ball linear momentum perpendicular to the string, by imparting that initial push, and away it goes.”
Yes away it goes along a linear path with fixed orientation.
Once the ball has moved a short distance, the string is now at an angle from its original direction. Its tension force is now applying a slight tangential component to the ball.
IOW the string’s tension force is no longer thru the CM of the ball. It then is able to apply TORQUE to the ball around its CM.
Thus, the ball’s orientation starts to align with the string, it has rotation, around its CM.
And that rotation happened due to torque.
When I was in Russia I visited a giant hall that had Foucault pendulum suspended from the dome, they set it off and in a few minutes it knocked down a pin sitting on the floor few degrees to the side.
There is no doubt Foucault pendulum would prove the moon spins on its axes but somewhat hard to demonstrate.
eben…”When I was in Russia…”
They didn’t send you to a Gulag or anything, did they, for your incorrect views on the Moon’s rotation? ☺
Eben, the moon issue is not that involved. Does a racehorse rotate on its axis? If you believe it does, then you don’t understand reality.
If you believe the horse is NOT rotating on its axis, then you must also understand that Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
It’s just that simple.
Eben
We don’t share much about climate matters, but I really appreciate that you don’t shut up about this problem.
Foucault pendulum on moon would be real cool, On one hand the moon spins very slow but on the other there is no air to slow it down so it would swing for very long time.
Yes.
Yes, the Foucault pendulum would indeed show that orbital motion.
The pendulum would indeed indicate the orbital motion. But, if there were really a canceling axial rotation, then the pendulum would show NO rotation.
So, once again, the Spinners have wrapped themselves around their own axes.
Nothing new.
eben…”Foucault pendulum on moon would be real cool, On one hand the moon spins very slow…”
Eben…you should stand under the pendulum so it smacks you on the head. It might knock some sense into you. ☺
dremt…”I think its exactly the same as swinging a ball on a rope around your head. Not the same orbit, obviously, but the same principle.
Ah, so youre not arguing that gravity applies a torque to the moons axis, in fact quite the opposite since there is nothing to produce a torque about the moons axis, its effectively held in place like a ball on a string!”
No…I don’t think gravity causes any torque about the Moon’s axis because it is applied equally to both sides of the near face. I think gravity turns the entire rigid body as a unit, always aligning the near side to dark side axis with the gravitational field.
Remember, the Moon is moving by it’s own moment at considerable speed and wants to go in a straight line.
If you had the strength, and someone was standing facing you with arms by his/her side, you could clasp him/her by the top of the arms, at the shoulders, with both hands turned inwards, life him her off the ground, and turn him her a slight amount, then put him/her down.
You could repeat that till you had turned the person in a circle. The person could not rotate about his/her own axis/COG because you are holding him/her by the shoulders so he/she cannot rotate locally. Yet you can turn the person through an entire circular orbit wherein he she changes orientation by 360 degrees.
If you were really strong, you could pick that person up by the shoulders and move him/her in a complete circle and he/she could not rotate about a local COG due to your grip. That’s how I visualize the effect of gravity on the Moon.
There is absolutely no angular rotation about that person’s COG, only rotation about the centre of the circle.
“No…I don’t think gravity causes any torque about the Moon’s axis”
Hopefully you won’t have people misrepresenting what you’re saying, now you’ve clarified!
dremt…”NoI dont think gravity causes any torque about the Moons axis”
The Moon does not require a torque to turn it’s orientation. As you know, it’s turning motion is due to its forward linear momentum and the attractive force of the Earth’s gravity across its near face.
The fact that Earth’s gravity acts on both sides of the near face simultaneously, while that face is always toward the Earth, cancels any torque.
It’s hard to visualize but I am getting used to it.
“The Moon does not require a torque to turn it’s orientation. As you know, it’s turning motion is due to its forward linear momentum and the attractive force of the Earth’s gravity across its near face.”
Maybe just say “the attractive force of the Earth’s gravity acting though its center”, instead; it won’t change the meaning of what you are saying, but hopefully once again you won’t then get people misrepresenting you. Unfortunately we’re in an environment where unless you use the exact phrasing that they need to hear at every moment, desperate people will try to twist your words.
dremt…”Maybe just say the attractive force of the Earths gravity acting though its center”
I would if it were that simple. Something else has to be operating in order for the Moon to turn as a rigid body without local rotation. That something is linear momentum.
I would like to see a close up, instantaneous example of that. I have seen it using vectors but I am having trouble finding that example again.
Besides, I don’t give a rat’s a** if someone misinterpret’s me. I have moved on in life from carrying the burden of ego. Lot easier not having to defend it and/or justify it, even though I still get caught up in it. It tends to give me a good laugh when caught, although maybe not in the moment.
‘Something else has to be operating in order for the Moon to turn as a rigid body without local rotation.”
That something is ANGULAR momentum.
“I would if it were that simple”
I didn’t mean to imply it was only the force of the Earth’s gravity acting through its center. I get that you mean it’s a combination of the moon’s linear momentum, and Earth’s gravity, that leads to the moon “swinging” about the Earth like a ball on a string.
You were asking about where you saw the vectors, I think I can help:
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html
These were your instructions at the time:
“Turn on all the check boxes like Gravity force, velocity, path (orbit) and grid. Then turn up the magnification at top left to full +.
Turn on slo-mo as you approach 12 o’clock then stop the motion at 12 o’clock. With all vectors turned on you can see the relationship between the Moon’s velocity and Earth’s gravity, resulting in the orbit.
Click forward briefly and stop. Repeat, watching how the vectors change position, carving out the orbit.”
The simulator shows the relationship between the vectors, and how they create orbital motion even more clearly than the animations here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
This should have corrected all the people who claim that the cannonball could be moving like the arrows on the right, in the below:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
It’s not hard to understand, really, but some people are just desperate to avoid accepting it.
“If you had the strength, and someone was standing facing you with arms by his/her side, you could clasp him/her by the top of the arms, at the shoulders, with both hands turned inwards, life him her off the ground, and turn him her a slight amount, then put him/her down.”
Good example. I am building a raised bed garden at home with 10′ long boards.
They are relatively easy to pick up, way lighter than a person.
But if I do your maneuver above, lift up, rotate it, put it down, I can feel it has very high resistance to being rotated. It has high rotational inertia, I.
It takes a significant TORQUE to do the rotating part of the maneuver.
Then it takes a noticeable amount of torque in the opposite direction to STOP it from turning more.
Try it.
nate…”Good example. I am building a raised bed garden at home with 10′ long boards.
They are relatively easy to pick up, way lighter than a person.”
You must have a pretty good wingspan if you can pick up a 10′ board by its ends.
You need to keep your mind focused on the physical aspects of the lunar orbit. The Moon is moving at a higher rate of speed trying to move in a straight line. As it does, it experiences a force across it’s near face drawing it toward the Earth.
I used the example of the child only to give an example of the effect of gravity across the entire face of the Moon.
So, how would you replicate that using a board? You’d have to drill a hole at the centre of the board, tie a rope through it, loop the other end of the rope and put it around a round peg in the ground.
Now use a 2′ board, stand on the outside of the circle, grab it by the ends, and walk around the circle. You must keep the board in a tangential direction to the rope at all times.
It cannot rotate locally because you have a hold of both ends.
Another example, you’re dancing with a woman and you are holding her by the shoulders. She is rotating (dancing) around YOU as you turn on the spot as if on an axis.
How could you spin her as in a jive maneuver? You’d have to release her shoulders, hold one hand above her, which she’d grasp, then she could spin around her own axis while rotating around yours.
Come one Nate, it’s not that hard, is it?
‘You must have a pretty good wingspan if you can pick up a 10′ board by its ends.’
No, holding it in the middle.
But Gordon, why are you trying to deny the basic physical reality that to rotate something requires torque?
My example is simply a way to actually feel it.
And of course tight rope walkers use it. As they walk holding a long pole with large I, falling over requires a larger torque.
‘As it does, it experiences a force across its near face drawing it toward the Earth.’
It experiences a force thru its center, as Newton proved.
‘Now use a 2′ board, stand on the outside of the circle, grab it by the ends, and walk around the circle. You must keep the board in a tangential direction to the rope at all times.
It cannot rotate locally because you have a hold of both ends.
Another example, youre dancing with a woman and you are holding her by the shoulders. She is rotating (dancing) around YOU as you turn on the spot as if on an axis.”
These examples are moving further and further from the Moon situation. But it all of them you find torque is involved.
To replicate the Moon, use your long board with a hole trhu its center. Put a screw driver thru the hole with handle on the bottom.
Hold the board horizontally with the screw driver, walk in a straight line, now make a 90 degree turn.
Does the board immediately turn into the direction you are going? No.
Because the screw driver thru the center is unable to apply much torque, just like gravity.
nate…”But Gordon, why are you trying to deny the basic physical reality that to rotate something requires torque?”
Not unless it’s acting as part of a lever system. A torque about an axis is essentially a force acting at a distance along a lever attached to the axis.
The Moon-Earth system has no such lever arm. There is no tangential force on the Moon, it has only linear, tangential momentum. The only force in the system is the radial, centripetal force of Earth’s gravity.
When Earth’s gravitational field acts on the near face of the Moon it does so symmetrically, therefore no torque is applied.
If the Moon did have a local rotation it would be due to local angular momentum, like Earth’s.
Earth’s gravitational field acts essentially as a rope, as in the rope/ball swung around one’s head. That’s why the same face of the Moon is always toward us.
‘When Earths gravitational field acts on the near face of the Moon it does so symmetrically, therefore no torque is applied.
If the Moon did have a local rotation it would be due to local angular momentum, like Earths.’
Good and good.
So, simply by going into orbit, gravity provides no torque, and therefore is unable to make the Moon reorient, UNLESS it already has angular momentum.
nate…”So, simply by going into orbit, gravity provides no torque, and therefore is unable to make the Moon reorient, UNLESS it already has angular momentum”.
Nooooo,
I did a lot of problem sets in engineering studies related to orbit entry and exit. The primary components of orbit entry are distance from the planet, the gravitational force it extends, and the tangential velocity of the space craft.
If you are in a space craft approaching a planet like Mars, you have to decide what velocity with which you will enter orbit at a tangential direction then you must calculate how far out that tangential path is. If you’re going to fast, you have to apply retro-rockets to slow you to the proper entry velocity.
If you have the right velocity, and the right distance, you will automatically go into orbit without having to worry about turning your craft. It’s automatic, gravity simply diverts your momentum into an orbital path.
You don’t want your spacecraft rotating about it’s own COG, do you? No other adjustments are required re local rotation, just get into a tangential path at the proper altitude and velocity, given a particular gravitational force.
You are thinking the Moon has to rotate about its axis to keep the same face toward the Earth. Local rotation not required. All that’s required is that your momentum matches the planet’s gravitation force. That is a function of altitude and velocity.
The Moon does not rotate about it’s axis in orbit, it is simply following a linear path that is constrained by the gravitational field…like a ball on a rope.
The Moon does not rotate about its axis, it just follows a linear path that changes each instant.
Ugggh, yes you apply a force thru the CM of your space craft to slow it down to enter orbit.
That applies no torque. Orientation remains fixed on a star.
Gravity acts thru the CM of spacecraft, and applies no torque. Orientation remains fixed on a star.
‘Gravity diverts momentum into orbit’
Yep! But does nothing to divert crafts orientation from that star!
This should help with your explanation, too:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369618
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#/media/File%3ATorque_animation.gif
I’ll quote the linked comment:
““This might help, too:”
I should just add that it mainly helps with the “Newton’s Cannonball” gifs, although now it should be clearer how that ties in with the simulator output anyway…
…the cannon supplies the force (F) producing the momentum (p), which as you can see from the Angular momentum link produces a torque at the central point that the ball is rotating around (so not at the axis of the ball itself), and from there you get your angular momentum (L). Which would be “orbital” angular momentum only, not angular momentum about the ball’s own axis.”
What really needs to be stressed is that nobody is saying gravity produces a torque. I think most people will have got it by now though, so it should be OK.
Gravity is not producing torque, but it still manages to CAUSE the Moon to turn its orientation. Right..
Hows that work? Ordinary physics says to turn something, as in change its orientation, requires a turning force. Thats called torque.
Is ordinary physics wrong, or are you guys missing something?
nate…”Ordinary physics says to turn something, as in change its orientation, requires a turning force. Thats called torque”.
The turning force is gravity…like a ball on a rope. When you swing the ball around your head and accelerate it to speed, it develops a momentum which keeps it rotating about your head. It wants to go straight but the centripetal force you apply on the rope keeps it in orbit.
It doesn’t require torque to change orientation if the mass is already moving with momentum. The momentum causes the change in orientation as the centripetal force forms its path.
In other words, the rope restricts the motion of the ball’s path. If you cut the rope, the ball will happily fly off on a straight line.
Remember, torque is a special case of a force acting at a distance along a lever arm. If you had a mass on a lever arm attached to an axle, and you drove the mass tangentially with a rocket, it would orbit the axle just like the Moon.
That’s torque.
If you are in space, where there is no opposing friction, and you gave the mass a shot with the rocket, it would keep rotating with its own momentum provided the axle provided no resistance.
When the rocket is shut off, there is no torque.
Gordon, the string and gravity are different.
Compare 2 games, tether ball and volley ball.
In both you serve by hitting the ball and giving it linear momentum.
The volleyball just goes straight with fixed orientation.
The tether ball also -until the rope gets taught, and it applies a tangential force
on the ball, pulling it into alignment with the rope. That is TORQUE.
I’m convinced the Spinners will never change their false religion. Their devotion is exactly analogous to cultism.
But, that explains why the AGW hoax has lasted so long, along with other pseudoscience.
So you can’t do math, so you accuse people of cultism.
How mighty nice of you.
‘I’m convinced the Spinners will never change their false religion’
Good, whatever you want to call it, it works well for scientists and engineers.
Apparently no compelling argument to change their views has been made.
Huffman
“Their devotion is exactly analogous to cultism.”
Nice to see that you do not even manage to to feel the analogy between
– what you suspect others to be
and
– what all these people conversely happen to discern in your own behavior.
Lack of ability to anticipate and avoid such mistakes is a true testimony to human maturity.
bob, Nate, and Bindidon, thanks for being good examples of what I explained.
Anyone else?
If I observe the moon to stop spinning, then I will say the moon is not spinning.
Huffman
The next valuable check for maturity is the ability to
– understand the major difference between ‘to explain’ and ‘to pretend’,
and hence
– to avoid any improper use of the former.
I didn’t expect much here, and it shows.
“If I observe the moon to stop spinning, then I will say the moon is not spinning.”
There’s a bit of an irony there, as you can only observe it from Earth, I presume (you’re not an astronaut, are you blob?)…for you to observe it to “stop spinning”, as you would define it, would be the case where you can see all sides of the moon from Earth. So…in fact, for you to observe the moon to stop spinning…you would have to observe it spinning…
Yes, it’s always funniest when they get themselves wrapped around their own axes!
It gets a bit boring repeatedly explaining something so simple to people that refuse to accept it, or understand it, perhaps just because they don’t like losing an argument, or perhaps because they just refuse to believe that their beloved institutions could be wrong…
…so you have to find some amusement where you can!
“refuse to accept it, or understand it, perhaps just because they dont like losing an argument”
Hilarious! You guys are the projection specialists!
The main problem is that you guys are into ‘truthiness’ rather than ‘factiness’.
Briefly ‘truthiness’ is the idea that truth is what feels right to you.
Facts, evidence, established science, Meh..if they go against what feels right, to ME, they’re wrong.
Its why new facts are generally ignored and don’t change your minds.
Nate, is the racehorse rotating on its axis?
Yes it is so simple to explain to someone that the moon spins and the racehorse spins.
And the moon spins around an axis different and not parallel to the axis the moon revolves around the earth.
Pretty simple, usually eighth graders get it, but you clowns, nope.
If you guys can propose a model where the moon is not spinning and still exhibits the libration observed from the earth, then you might have a chance at supporting your argument.
Which right now amounts to the moon doesn’t spin because, crickets.
Someone must be imitating bob. He agreed to not comment for 90 days.
Surely he hasn’t reneged on his word….
JD didn’t live up to his end of the bargain, he doesn’t know physics or math.
JD failed to prove all points on the Moon move at the same linear velocity.
Maybe JD should stop posting until he learns some physics, math, or reality.
No, that is the real bob.
You can tell by all the false accusations.
Nothing new.
blob, once you have observed your moon to “stop spinning”, as you would define it, you would now be able to observe it turning, from Earth, as I explained. You would now be able to see all sides of the moon over time. So, as you watched it spin, over the course of the month, if it was leaning slightly towards Earth, or slightly away from Earth, or neither, you would very clearly be able to tell where the axis is that the moon was doing that turning, and whether or not there was a libration of latitude. All clear as day, in your “non-spinning” moon. From whatever you saw, of your “non-spinning” moon, you would be able to determine where are the North and South “poles”.
Funny that.
Nope JD,
No false accusations.
You indeed failed.
You failed.
You are a math and science failure.
DREMPTY
“blob, once you have observed your moon to stop spinning, as you would define it, you would now be able to observe it turning, from Earth, as I explained.”
Nope, if it stopped spinning, then I wouldn’t be able to see it turning, cause it wouldn’t be turning or spinning.
“You would now be able to see all sides of the moon over time.”
This is true, if It wasn’t spinning you could see all sides from earth, so you get something right.
“So, as you watched it spin, over the course of the month, if it was leaning slightly towards Earth, or slightly away from Earth, or neither, you would very clearly be able to tell where the axis is that the moon was doing that turning, and whether or not there was a libration of latitude.”
But it is not spinning so I couldn’t watch it spin. DUH
“All clear as day, in your non-spinning moon. From whatever you saw, of your non-spinning moon, you would be able to determine where are the North and South poles.”
It has to be spinning to have poles, that’s why it has poles, because it is spinning.
“Funny that.”
Your whole post was funny, but not funny ha ha.
blob realizes that he would see all sides of the moon from Earth, if it was “not spinning”, as he defines it, but somehow thinks this is going to happen without the moon’s face actually turning during the month.
Probably the most stupid comment he’s ever written.
Drempty,
Thing is, I don’t define spinning, I use the commonly accepted definition.
Which is not “keeps the same face towards the earth.”
Perhaps you are the one making up definitions, after all that is the only way for you to win the argument.
this is an acceptable definition
“turn or cause to turn or whirl around quickly.”
Here you say
“blob realizes that he would see all sides of the moon from Earth, if it was not spinning, as he defines it, but somehow thinks this is going to happen without the moons face actually turning during the month.”
If the moon is not spinning, how can it turn?
If you could see all sides of the moon from Earth, during the month, how would that happen without the face of the moon turning?
DREMPTY,
The same way you could see the back of an object by walking around it.
< X
X <
X is the earth, < is the moon, the < doesn't spin, when it revolves to the other side of the earth, you can see the back of it.
You’re just trolling me.
DREMPTY,
So what part of as the moon revolves halfway around the earth without spinning, so it revolves 180 degrees, while you sitting on the earth spins 180 degrees, so you can see the backside of the moon do you not understand.
I can’t make the diagram any simpler.
blob, over the course of the month, you would see the face of the moon turning.
You can call it an “apparent turning”, rather than a real one, if you like, and you can justify the movement in whatever way you wish, as you are currently doing, and explaining. That’s fine.
It makes absolutely no difference to the point I made.
DREMPTY,
You have been trying to make the point that the moon doesn’t spin.
So far you have failed to make that point.
The point I was making was based on the premise that the Moon wasn’t turning, and you say that over the month I would see the moon turning.
You are making a logical contradiction, you are claiming I would see the opposite of my initial premise.
I can only conclude that you really are that stupid.
☺️
OK, blob. You are not bright enough to understand the point being made. Not my problem.
Humpty Drempty,
The point being,
If the moon isn’t spinning,
And makes a half orbit of the earth, which is spinning.
Now you, the observer would see the back side of the moon, if it wasn’t spinning. Because you have spun 180 degrees to be able to see the moon after it has revolved 180 degrees.
But you don’t see the backside, do you?
So the initial premise that the moon is not spinning is proven false.
Therefore the moon is spinning.
End of proof.
Proof valid, unless you can show where it is wrong.
Dr Em T mutters to himself:
“If you could see all sides of the moon from Earth, during the month, how would that happen without the face of the moon turning?!”
It’s called curvilinear translation, Einstein. Go get a kinematics textbook and learn something about it.
Both dumb as a box of rocks.
If the moon was not spinning, as you define “not spinning”, moving like the arrows on the right:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
which HGS defines as “curvilinear translation”
you would see all sides of the moon from Earth, over time. If you took a series of photographs of the face of the moon, over time, and put them together in a gif, like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#/media/File%3ALunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif
That gif would instead show the face of the moon turning!
So, as you watched it turn, over the course of the month, if it was leaning slightly towards Earth, or slightly away from Earth, or neither, you would very clearly be able to tell where the axis is that the moon was turning around, and whether or not there was a libration of latitude. All clear as day, in your “non-spinning” moon. From whatever you saw, of your “non-spinning” moon, you would be able to determine where are the North and South “poles”.
That was the point being made, blob. It was in response to your comment:
“If you guys can propose a model where the moon is not spinning and still exhibits the libration observed from the earth, then you might have a chance at supporting your argument.”
Instead of addressing, or even beginning to understand, the point being made, you are back to making the stupid argument that because we don’t see the moon turning from Earth, that means it must rotate on its own axis. Which only demonstrates once again that you have no idea what our position actually is.
Poor Dr Em T. Always the clown.
Go to Tesla’s Figure 5. Imagine the clown Dr Em T is standing at the center of orbit for the balls. What does he see? He sees every side of the ball as the balls translates along their circular orbit.
Now who defined this movement along the curve in Figure 5 as translation????? The clown Tesla himself. Make up your mind, clown. Do you agree with Tesla or not. You don’t get to pick an choose.
There is no shame if you cannot comprehend this simple illustration. Well, actually there is, but whose counting anyway?? That would be me.
Now about the other clown standing with his feet glued to the center of a rotating merry-go-round. Is he rotating or not?
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
This really is like shooting fish in a barrel.
…and the point I’m making sails straight over HGS’s head.
Dr Em T asks a specific dumb question:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-372100
and does not like the answer.
I don’t read your boring diatribes if they go beyond 3 lines.
Dr Em T actually thinks I read all his boring comments. How cute.
It was a rhetorical question!
I don’t mind that you’re not intelligent enough to follow the discussion. You’re only making a fool of yourself, so knock yourself out.
NOPE
DREMPTY
You say
“All clear as day, in your non-spinning moon. From whatever you saw, of your non-spinning moon, you would be able to determine where are the North and South poles.”
If the moon wasn’t spinning, it wouldn’t have poles.
I am defining spinning like everyone else in the universe except you few that claim the moon is not spinning.
And as to this
“Instead of addressing, or even beginning to understand, the point being made, you are back to making the stupid argument that because we dont see the moon turning from Earth, that means it must rotate on its own axis. Which only demonstrates once again that you have no idea what our position actually is.”
We actually do see the Moon turning from earth, you have to be smart enough to realize that we as observer on earth, have to realize that we are spinning too. Which means that the observation that the Moon is not turning when viewed from earth is the optical illusion.
You are just not smart enough to realize that you are spinning.
And by the way, I understand the points you try to make, I understand they are wrong.
Learn something and then grow up.
Let’s see if we can take this one step at a time, blob, because it’s obviously all a bit much for you, in one go.
Step 1:
If the moon was not spinning, as you define “not spinning”, i.e. moving like the arrows on the right:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
the motion HGS defines as “curvilinear translation”
you would see all sides of the moon from Earth, over time. If you took a series of photographs of the face of the moon, over time, and put them together into a gif, like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#/media/File%3ALunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif
That gif would instead show the face of the moon turning.
It would be a gif of a rotating spherical object.
Yes? (“yes” is the correct answer, by the way).
DREMPTY,
Yes, baby steps.
Now we will see where you go off the rails.
So…that’s a yes, you agree with Step 1?
You agree we have a gif of a rotating spherical object?
DREMPTY,
Yes it would appear as a gif of a rotating spherical object, but we first stated that it was not a rotating object, so
What we would have would be an optical illusion of a rotating spherical object.
We stated that this would be a “non-spinning” moon as you see it. As far as our “side” of the discussion is concerned, it would be a spinning moon.
But in any case, glad you agree with Step 1. The gif would show a rotating spherical object.
Step 2: From looking at the gif, you would be able to determine where the axis of rotation of the spherical object is. Even if you wish to call it an “optical illusion”, that “optical illusion” would be rotating about an axis.
DREMPTY,
So it all boils down to how you define spin.
And you can’t declare that it’s not spinning at the beginning of your argument and then later in the same argument declare that now it’s our position that it is spinning.
So how do you define spin?
“And you can’t declare that it’s not spinning at the beginning of your argument and then later in the same argument declare that now it’s our position that it is spinning.”
I’m not doing that, blob.
From the beginning of my argument, I have made it clear that this is a moon that is not spinning, as you see it. Not as we see it.
Like the arrows on the right, remember?
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
We can’t even move on from Step 1 without you getting yourself confused.
DREMPTY,
Don’t get you panties all in a bunch.
All I ask you is to define what you mean by spin.
And then it would be helpful to the discussion to us the term the way the rest of the human race uses it.
Of course if you define a non-spinning moon as a spinning moon, and a spinning moon as a non-spinning moon, then of course you are correct that the moon doesn’t spin.
But everyone else can see that you are retarded.
…and we’re drifting further and further away from the point.
It’s OK blob, I’ll just put you down as ineducable.
Well DREMPTY,
One of my points throughout all these discussions is you have to use the commonly agreed upon definitions.
You can’t try to do science and make up all your own definitions.
And I get your point, that the moon on the left is not spinning and the moon on the right is spinning.
However, no astronomer would agree with you.
Damn I just can’t learn your mistakes.
“And I get your point, that the moon on the left is not spinning and the moon on the right is spinning.”
That’s not the point I am making in this particular discussion. You really are quite dim, blob.
Drempty,
You are not making any points and refusing to discuss what point you are trying to make and just resorting to insults.
Fine, it’s all here for anyone to see.
The point was already made, to anyone of any intelligence. I was just trying to help, blob. But I see there’s no use.
DREMPTY,
So according to your side an object pointing in the same direction at all times is rotating on its axis.
I’ll have some fries with that.
I see there’s no use.
Ah,
Don’t give up now HUMPTY DREMPTRY,
Just when you were on the verge of making a point or debunking something.
Surely you have it in you to do that.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-372631
“But in any case, glad you agree with Step 1. The gif would show a rotating spherical object.
Step 2: From looking at the gif, you would be able to determine where the axis of rotation of the spherical object is. Even if you wish to call it an ‘optical illusion’, that ‘optical illusion’ would be rotating about an axis.”
Sure, I’ll bite.
The faux axis would always be the Moon’s orbital axis.
While the real Moon has an axis tilted wrt to the orbital axis.
There would be no libration, allowing us to see the N. pole sometimes, and the S. pole other times.
We would always be looking directly at the faux equator of the Moon, and the faux Poles would never be visible to us.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
So I am looking at your sides little screen shot here
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
and the arrows are all pointing straight up, but the caption says
“Figure 2: Orbiting AND rotating on its axis (CW, in synch with orbit)
So something that is pointing in the same direction is rotating in synch with orbit.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
that is funny, if you weren’t getting your panties all up in a bunch defending it.
Sorry loser
“the motion HGS defines as curvilinear translation
Wrong. The definitions were taken from kinematic lecture notes from various universities. It’s the standard definition for curvilinear translation. Tesla even agreed that with his Figure 5, the balls were translating along a curve.
Oh really, HGS? You’ve never mentioned that before.
lmao. JD can’t even understand what Tesla is talking about. Tesla correctly defines translation. Poor Gordon will be lost as well.
Child-Gone-Stupid continues to entertain us with his incompetence.
1) He doesn’t know how to place his comments.
2) He can’t understand his own link: Fig. 5. — “…With This Model the Fallacy of the Moon’s Rotation on Its Axle Is Demonstrable.”
1. I was on my phone, which messes up placement.
2. Poor JD could not respond to the specific statements of Tesla, since they were apparently too technical.
“…With This Model the Fallacy of the Moon’s Rotation on Its Axle Is Demonstrable.”
Except upon a close read of Tesla, one finds that he does not demonstrate that the apparent rotation of the Moon is a fallacy.
He is just like the non-spinners, he just makes an unsupported assertion.
He should have stuck to his lane.
“Except upon a close read of Tesla, one finds that he does not demonstrate that the apparent rotation of the Moon is a fallacy.”
blob makes an unsupported assertion.
He should have stuck to his lane.
Well Tesla didn’t even mention the moon’s obliquity, or libration.
He just compared it to a ball stuck on the end of a rod, and concluded that the moon wasn’t spinning.
He should have stuck to electricity and asked the wizard what he should do with his spare time.
Actually, Tesla did bring up the libration of longitude in his third paper, and referred to it as such. It’s unlikely that someone who was aware of the term “libration of longitude” would not also be aware of the term “libration of latitude”. He responded to a lot of letters he received at the time, I’m guessing that nobody brought the issue up, due to possessing the basic logic skills necessary to understand why it isn’t an issue.
But, you all need your comfort blankets to cling to, so if you want to make that your “comfort blanket” topic you can. Just hold on to that for dear life as you rock back and forth, and keep telling yourself it will all be OK.
Drempty
Well, libration of latitude and obliquity are key to determining where the axis is that the moon actually rotates around, seems Tesla did not address that.
…due to possessing the basic logic skills necessary to understand why it isn’t an issue…
Tesla:
“Referring to the librations of longitude, I do not see that they have any bearing on this question. In astronomical treatises the axial rotation of the moon is accepted as a material fact and it is thought that its angular velocity is constant while that of the orbital movement is not, this resulting in an apparent oscillation revealing more of its surface to our view. To a degree this may be true….”
But like you guys, he doesnt let facts get in the way of his feelings.
bob still can’t understand the difference between orbiting and rotating on an axis. And, bob can’t honor his own agreements.
There’s probably a connection….
JD,
You failed to hold up your end of the bargain, but I’ll give you another chance to show that all points on the moon are moving at the same velocity.
You can use vectors if you think your vector skills are up to the task.
Hint: they are not.
Also, the moon revolves around the earth around an axis.
the moon also rotates around an axis through it own poles.
these two axes are not the same and they are not even parallel.
Rotation and revolution are two different things, not the same thing as in your perverted reality.
It bites doesn’t it.
Learn some physics.
The clowns confuse linear velocity with angular velocity, which is surprising, since the clown Tesla did not.
And Tesla also correctly described curvilinear translation with his Figure 5, in which Tesla shows it actually IS possible for a body on a curved path not to change direction, contrary to what Gordon states.
“Rotation and revolution are two different things, not the same thing as in your perverted reality.”
blob’s straw man reveals he still doesn’t even understand our position, whilst HGS shows once again that the only thing he cares about is the definition of curvilinear translation.
Yes DREMT, they’re stuck on stupid.
Nate is trying to misrepresent Tesla, as Bindidon tried to misrepresent Newton.
bob can’t stand by his agreement.
And the poor uneducated child is still using my name and trying to use kinematics to solve orbital motion.
Nothing new.
“… as Bindidon tried to misrepresent Newton.”
And pseudoskeptic liar Huffman tries once again to discredit Bindidon without being able to explain where he misrepresented Newton.
Bindidon, before you use the “L” word, you should get your wording correct.
But, that would require competency and honesty, huh?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-369059
Gordon is late again. There must have been an abundance of baby seals he could club today.
Yes, JD, I’ve come to realize that they’re just not very bright. But what they lack in intelligence they make up for in belligerence.
JD,
You failed to compensate for the fact that angular velocity and linear velocity have different units.
Please refer to a physics textbook to learn where you went horribly wrong.
90 days, bob, 90 days.
Do what you agreed to.
JD, you failed to show me the math that shows that all parts of the moon have the same linear velocity.
when only when you do that, then I will take a vacation.
You don’t live up to your end of the bargain, which comes first by the way.
Wrong again, bob.
I did my part. You just were unable to understand the clear 3-step explanation of the physics involved. Nothing new.
Knowing that you would try to weasel out of the agreement, I was careful to lock you in:
“If I explain that all parts of Moon have the same linear velocity, you agree to not comment here for 90 days. You may not understand my explanation, but you still must not comment. I can show you, but I cannot force you to accept reality.”
You have failed to do what you stated you would do. That’s reprehensible.
Nope JD, you did not in fact explain how all parts of the moon have the same linear velocity.
I in fact showed that they do not.
In you little three step explanation you forgot to convert angular velocity to linear velocity, which ruins your explanation.
Why you don’t take it up with a local physics professor to find out the truth or reality, I can’t explain.
But to convert angular velocity to linear velocity you have eat pie.
You knew that right?
The far side moves faster than the near side.
ibid.
I’m sorry I was wrong all along, will you guys please forgive me?
The child has gone full reprobate and now comments as me.
They’re soooooo desperate.
JD,
What happened to your mad math and science skillz?
They failed you when an easy peasy task would have freed you from my abuse for 90 days.
But you couldn’t “get er done”
Tsk. Kids these days.
Earth’s average distance from the Sun is about 149.6 million km
149.6 times 2 times pi = 939.96 million km in the circumference
of our orbit.
Or we travel about 940 million km along the path of orbit every year at average velocity of about 29.78 km per second.
940 / 29.78 = 31.563 million seconds
Seconds in year: 3.154 e^7
Or:
“How many Seconds are in a Year?
Seconds in a year calculation
One astronomical year of a single rotation around the sun, has 365.25 days:
1 year = 365.25 days = (365.25 days) (24 hours/day) (3600 seconds/hour) = 31557600 seconds
One calendar common year has 365 days:
1 common year = 365 days = (365 days) (24 hours/day) (3600 seconds/hour) = 31536000 seconds
One calendar leap year has 366 days (occures every 4 years):
1 leap year = 366 days = (366 days) (24 hours/day) (3600 seconds/hour) = 31622400 seconds”
https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/time/seconds-in-year.html
So to get to say Mars, you increase the orbital velocity of the about 29.78 km/sec to something like 30.5 km/sec and at opposite side of the sun this causes the orbit to further from the sun. And if Mars is there, you can get to to Mars.
And this called hohmann transfer or planetary hohmann transfer.
And hohmann transfer is generally how we go anywhere is space, because it requires the least amount rocket power to get somewhere.
Or if in Earth low orbit, and going about 7.8 km per second, to get to the Moon, add about 3.1 km/sec to raise the orbit on far side of earth to lunar distance [and if Moon is there you can get to the Moon] and require about 3 to 4 days to get to Moon.
If you want to flyby the Moon, one can reach lunar distance from earth surface in about 9 hours. Or if want to hit the moon rather go into lunar orbit or land on the Moon, it takes you about 9 hours to put nice size impact crater on lunar surface. This roughly what ranger program, did. Wiki:
The Ranger program was a series of unmanned space missions by the United States in the 1960s whose objective was to obtain the first close-up images of the surface of the Moon. The Ranger spacecraft were designed to take images of the lunar surface, transmitting those images to Earth until the spacecraft were destroyed upon impact.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_program
Oh, btw, one could do a “ranger program” in regards to Mercury. Never heard anyone mention this, but like the ranger program is pretty simple to do. Or we have sent and Europe is sending spacecraft to Mercury and it take years to get there- because they want to go into a orbit of Mercury.
With hohmann transfer it takes about 104 days to get to Mercury distance, but it would require enormous amount rocket power to enter Mercury orbit- but don’t need that rocket power to hit Mercury with very bright explosion.
“And hohmann transfer is generally how we go anywhere is space, because it requires the least amount rocket power to get somewhere.”
One thing about this, is that commercial lunar water mining will change this paradigm.
It’s sort of like flying, flying is not about using the least amount of energy to go somewhere. Maybe, that a reason that some people don’t like the whole idea of flying.
For instance, one might pick lighter than air flying [balloons] over heavier than air flying [airplanes] because they seem to require less energy- or obviously, it require energy to defy gravity.
I happen to like the lighter than air vehicles, and when we start living in the Venus sky, I think we will see more of them. But also I am overly fond of revolutions, and airplanes took over the skies, I thought was a good thing. But also eager to replace them with sub-orbital vehicles.
And with living on Mars, it seems suborbital and lighter than air vehicles could be more dominate than “airplanes”.
So one aspect of making lunar rocket fuel is it transform, how travel in space.
stupid…”The clowns confuse linear velocity with angular velocity, which is surprising, since the clown Tesla did not”.
There is no difference along a specified path. Each can be specified in m/s.
The main difference is that angular velocity is often represented in polar coordinates. Along a circular orbit, angular velocity can be described in radians per second or m/s.
There are 2pi radians in any circumference. If you can calculate the circumference in metres, you can divide by 2pi = 6.28 to convert metres to radians. Or you can convert radians to metres.
Your egregious error is in thinking the individual particle velocity on a rigid body matters. If a rigid body like the Moon is in a circular orbit about a centre, you can express the velocity of the body as that of a radial line through the body in radians per second. However, when expressing the instantaneous velocity of the body in the orbit, in metres/second you must express the velocity of the COG only.
Gordon,
JD stated: “All parts of the Noon are moving at the same linear velocity.” He is confusing angular velocity with linear velocity. All parts of the moon simply do not move at the same linear velocity. There is no excuse for confusing the two.
Angular velocity is not measured in m/s. It’s the rate of change of the angular displacement per unit time. You are totally wrong.
Gordon states:
“Your egregious error is in thinking the individual particle velocity on a rigid body matters”
Wrong. Tesla would not agree with you. In his moon rotation paper, Figure 5, Tesla calculates the velocities of individual particles. He describes the motion of the balls as, “a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V, which is that of its center of gravity. Velocity V, not angular velocity ω. Telsa knew the correct definition of translation, that “All points of the body have the same velocity”.
Furthermore, the balls are moving in a circular orbit, are translating per Tesla, and are not changing their orientation, something you said was not possible.
stupid…”Angular velocity is not measured in m/s. It’s the rate of change of the angular displacement per unit time”.
Once again, for the slow to comprehend, an angular displacement is normally measured as d(theta)/dt, where theta is the angle between a rotating radial line and the x-axis.
However, one radian equals an angle of 57.3 degrees, roughly. There are 6.28 radians in a circumference. That means the radius of a circle can be laid around the circumference 6.28 times.
If you multiply 6.26 radians/circumference x 57.3 degrees you get 359.84 degrees, close enough to a circle for the girls I go out with.
If your radial line meets a circle, upon which a body is moving, it’s a very simple matter to convert angular displacement to metres per second. The circumference = 2pi.r and r = 1 radian.
Do I have to go on? It’s easy to express angular velocity in m/s if your angular velocity is tracking a particle or a rigid body moving on a circle of radius r.
type…”If you multiply 6.26 radians/circumference…”
should be…”If you multiply 6.28 radians/circumference…”
another typo…type obviously mean typo.
I don’t suggest you try that with steradians. Then again, you might give it a go to see what solid angle, with diameter equal to the diameter of the Earth, is covered by 1360 W/m^2 at TOA.
stupid…”Gordon,
JD stated: All parts of the Noon are moving at the same linear velocity.
JD is correct. The Moon moves with an instantaneous linear velocity. In it’s orbit, however, a radial line from the Earth to the Moon can be measured with an angular velocity. That’s because the lunar orbit is a resultant path between the lunar constant tangential velocity and the acceleration of Earth’s gravity.
When you measure the orbital velocity of the Moon, you use the angular velocity of the radial line, not each particle on the Moon.
Gordon,
You don’t explain how JD is correct. All you state is the moon moves with an instantaneous linear velocity, which does not explain how all parts of the moon move at the same linear velocity, nor do you explain what you mean by the term “instantaneous linear velocity”. Since you are prone to making up your own definitions, as you do with curvilinear translation, then I can only guess as to what you mean by that term.
Gordon squeals:
“When you measure the orbital velocity of the Moon, you use the angular velocity of the radial line, not each particle on the Moon”
When one looks up “orbital velocity of moon”, one usually finds the quantity expressed in km/s, a linear velocity. You don’t find it expressed in radians per second (angular velocity). Otherwise they would need to say, “orbital angular velocity”.
Gordon drools:
“Once again, for the slow to comprehend”
I understood your WRONG THINKING the first time around, you idiot.
As the name implies, ANGULAR velocity measures the the ANGULAR displacement per unit time. Only a RETARD would measure angular displacement in m/s. Nobody teaches it the stupid way you present it. I see you are very confused. Here is a link for the basics:
https://scripts.mit.edu/~srayyan/PERwiki/index.php?title=Module_1_–_Angular_Kinematics
Go to the section entitled “Relating the angular quantities and the linear quantities”.
Do you see the formulas? V=rω. The equal sign tells you that V does not equal ω, Einstein. Because there is that term “r”.
But hey. Don’t let me get in the way of your fake definitions. You are very good at making up your own, just like with curvilinear translation.
6th line above, first word, should read “velocity”, not displacement.
The “Child Gone Stupid”, who steals other people’s names, does not have a clue about the relative physics. For him, and others, to believe Moon rotates on its axis, then they must also believe a racehorse rotates on its axis. And, they must believe a school bus circling Earth is traveling upside-down.
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
They must believe all such garbage to believe Moon is rotating on its axis. With such beliefs, they can NOT learn orbital motion.
Nothing new.
“With such beliefs, they can NOT learn orbital motion.”
No matter how many times it’s explained…
…and some of them can’t even understand that if an object is orbiting CCW, whilst rotating CW once per orbit (“in sync”), the two motions “cancel” to produce the movement shown on the right:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
They apparently lack the ability to visualize two independent motions occurring simultaneously.
Nope HUMPTY DREMPTY,
To be as you are describing it there has to be three motions, one revolution and one counter clockwise rotation and one clockwise rotation, to produce the movement shown on the right.
Which makes no sense
Just say its not rotating, rather than say it’s rotating clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time.
No matter how many times it’s explained…
You guys can’t even understand that if an object is orbiting CCW, whilst rotating CCW once per orbit (synchronously), the two motions combine to give the Moon’s motion.
You guys apparently lack the ability to visualize two independent motions occurring simultaneously.
DREMT, why are u enabling stupidity in JD and Gordon with the ‘all parts of the Moon have the same velociy’ nonsense?
When clearly you have quoted Tesla saying the opposite.
Not helping your credibility..
“To be as you are describing it there has to be three motions, one revolution and one counter clockwise rotation and one clockwise rotation, to produce the movement shown on the right.”
B-Li still doesn’t understand our position. No, B-Li. If you accept (for the sake of argument) that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the arrows on the left, then the arrows on the right represent that motion plus one CW axial rotation per CCW orbit. Just two, separate and independent motions, combined. Come back when you have the ability to visualize that.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
It’s not that I don’t understand your position, this is a science forum, not a political forum, there are right and wrong positions.
Your position is wrong.
The moon rotates is the correct answer.
The moon does not rotate is the wrong answer.
And calling the synchronous motion of the Moon as you say
“Just two, separate and independent motions, combined. Come back when you have the ability to visualize that.”
as one independent motion is incorrect, the moon has two motions, one of rotation and one of revolution.
And I have the ability to visualize your argument, it’s wrong.
B-Li writes a comment demonstrating that he doesn’t understand our position, then gets all upset and defensive when I point that out.
“And I have the ability to visualize your argument…”
Then stop writing comments that demonstrate that you don’t.
You don’t understand orbital motion.
Try Kepler
https://howthingsfly.si.edu/flight-dynamics/kepler%E2%80%99s-laws-orbital-motion
Rotation of the satellite about it’s axis is not part of orbital motion.
That is what you fail to understand.
“Rotation of the satellite about it’s axis is not part of orbital motion.”
Yes, agreed. And “orbital motion” is as per the left arrows.
HUMPTY DREMPTY
Half right,
The right arrows also show orbital motion.
Study Kepler and his three laws of Orbital Motion.
Another comment demonstrating you don’t understand our position.
Our position:
Both left and right arrows show orbital motion.
The arrows on the left show CCW orbital motion without axial rotation.
The arrows on the right show CCW orbital motion plus CW axial rotation, once per orbit.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
I understand your position, it is incorrect.
The correct position to take is
the diagram on the left shows orbital motion and axial rotation counter clockwise one axial rotation per orbit.
the diagram on the right show orbital motion with no axial rotation.
Study Keplar’s laws, I have provided links.
You continue to confuse and combine revolution and axial rotation.
B-Li, it’s not difficult to understand that we both see “orbital motion” and “axial rotation” as two separate and independent motions.
It’s just that you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the arrows on the right, and we define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the arrows on the left.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
We each then define “axial rotation” as being separate and independent of our “orbital motion” definition.
Your links to Kepler’s laws say nothing to imply “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the arrows on the right.
The clown’s clown physics is not even original thinking. JD’s Figure 2 on the right is just a rehash of Tesla’s Figure 5. At least Tesla correctly described its motion as translation along a curve.
The big problem is the clown Tesla and his clownettes use 2 reference frames. The orbit of the object around the center of orbit is wrt the inertial reference frame, while the ball’s (or arrow’s) rotation is wrt to the rotating spoke. Rookie mistake. So when Tesla locks the ball to the arm, he discovers it does not rotate wrt the arm. Like, duh!!!!! Wow, Einstein. Brilliant!
Such a comedy of errors.
Try studying Kepler’s laws to learn what Orbital Motion is.
https://howthingsfly.si.edu/flight-dynamics/kepler%E2%80%99s-laws-orbital-motion
Try studying the explanations already given as to why “orbital motion” is as per the arrows on the left:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
You’re pretty late to this part of the discussion.
Your link says nothing to imply it’s as per the arrows on the right.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
That’s because the orientation of the arrows on the right and left diagrams have nothing to do with orbital motion.
That’s because orbital motion is independent of axial rotation.
That’s because orbital motion is independent of axial rotation.
That’s because orbital motion is independent of axial rotation.
That’s because orbital motion is independent of axial rotation.
That’s because orbital motion is independent of axial rotation.
Yes, and because orbital motion is independent of axial rotation, there has to be such a motion as “orbital motion without axial rotation”. “Orbital motion only”.
You define that as being like the arrows on the right.
We define it as being like the arrows on the left.
Your link says nothing to imply it’s as per the arrows on the right.
HUMPTY DREMPTY
Right, but your definition is wrong, and you won’t pass Astronomy 101 that way.
And I am not defining the terms, and neither should you.
We should all use the definitions and terms as commonly accepted by the scientific community.
It’s good to see that for the first time ever, out of hundreds of comments demonstrating a complete lack of understanding, you are finally beginning to show some faint glimmers of comprehension about the absolute basics of this discussion. With a complete read through of every comment under this article, you may even improve yourself to the level of one who has something worthwhile to contribute.
What’s important for the scientific community is to stop using the incorrect definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, and to start using the correct one, one that correctly represents what that motion actually is, and how it comes about.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
“Whats important for the scientific community is to stop using the incorrect definition of orbital motion without axial rotation
Yeah, and can I get fries with that.
No seriously the scientific community doesn’t define orbital motion without axial rotation.
They define orbital motion.
And they define axial rotation.
And if you want to change the scientific community you can start with getting a PhD, then they might listen to you.
But your advisor might have issues with your thesis and your defense before a board won’t be pretty.
“You define that as being like the arrows on the right.
We define it as being like the arrows on the left.”
Great, it just semantics, so live and let live.
Except you guys keep trying to justify your definition as more ‘natural’ by changing physics.
You insist that linear momentum plus gravity magically produces a turning force, that is NOT TORQUE!
That non-torque turning force causes cannon balls and Moons to get rotation.
Then when gravity is turned off, strings are cut, balls fly off with axial rotation, but its not due to rotation!
And BTW, the Moon won’t do that, for some reason.
Its all very messed up.
“No seriously the scientific community doesn’t define orbital motion without axial rotation.
They define orbital motion.
And they define axial rotation.”
B-Li’s glimmer of comprehension disappears again.
B-Li, the explanations for why “orbital motion only” is like the left arrows have been given numerous times in the comments under this article, and are clear and easily understandable, to the honest.
So I guess that’s it. It’s goodbye from me for this article.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Don’t go away mad.
It’s like 2 + 2 = 6 is clearly understandable, but clearly wrong.
I might have said 2 + 2 = 5 but I didn’t.
The one saying the moon rotates is the honest one.
The one saying the moon doesn’t rotate is the liar.
with pants on fire.
Explanations ‘been given numerous times in the comments under this article, and are clear and easily understandable, to the honest.’
Yep but you guys ignored all of ours and continued with erroneous beliefs.
We understand the position of Tesla and his Clownettes. They use a combination of the inertial reference frame and a rotating reference frame that rotates as the same angular velocity as the object itself, and then are surprised to discover that the object CANNOT rotate wrt to that rotating reference frame.
Clown physics makes for great entertainment.
Now if I can just get the clownette Dr Em T to answer the question about the clown standing at the center of a merry-go-round with his clown feet glued the the merry go round. Is he rotating about his own axis, or not?
stupid…”They use a combination of the inertial reference frame and a rotating reference frame that rotates as the same angular velocity as the object itself…”
If a body is not rotating about its axis in one reference frame it is not rotating about it’s axis in any reference frame.
Gordon,
A clown is standing at the center of one of those playground merry-go-rounds. The merry go round is spinning. The clowns feet are firmly glued to the floor of the merry -go-round. Is the clown rotating on his own axis?
Gordon sputters:
“If a body is not rotating about its axis in one reference frame it is not rotating about its axis in any reference frame.”
Gordon. You may want to reconsider again. You’ve made a lot of statements that are completely wrong. Remember when you stated the following upthread?:
“Its not possible for a body on a curved path not to change orientation!
In Tesla’s article on the moon’s rotation, this is exactly what Tesla shows in his Figure 5. Tesla states the balls are translating along their circular path. He specifically states that the velocities of every particle of the balls are identical (a requirement for curvilinear translation). And you can see from the picture that the ball’s orientation does not change. So, you were wrong.
And now you have made another statement that you may want to reconsider. I’ll give you another chance, so you won’t look like a fool again.
The honest do not use two reference frames to come up with their nonsense.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
So now the child throws the school bus under the bus!
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
bob d…”Try studying Keplers laws to learn what Orbital Motion is”.
Kepler was a mathematician who used the data of Tycho Brahe, an astronomer, and formulated an orbital system from the data. He knew nothing about gravity. It was Newton who discovered why Kepler’s Law’s work.
You won’t find anything in Kepler’s work that explains how a body like the Moon remains in orbit. I studied a year of astrophysics but I learned my orbital theory in engineering physics.
Orbital motion is the result of a resultant path between the tangential linear momentum of the Moon and Earth’s normal (radial, centripetal) gravitational acceleration. The resultant path favours the Moon’s velocity vector. Gravitational acceleration on the Moon is just enough to divert the Moon from its linear path but not enough to cause it to spiral into the Earth.
As a result, the Moon keeps the same face toward the Earth with no need of local torque or rotation.
The Moon is diverted an instant at a time, with the gravitational force applied equally across the near face of the Moon. The only force on the Moon is Earth’s gravitational force, directed toward the Earth and perpendicular to the Moon’s instantaneous tangential path.
The Moon turns as if it was on a rope attached to the Earth’s centre. Since the same face is always toward Earth, it is impossible for the Moon to turn around it’s axis at the same time.
DREMT is able to easily handle both bob and Nate.
Why?
Is DREMT smarter, or just aware of the relative physics?
Likely both….
stupid…”As the name implies, ANGULAR velocity measures the the ANGULAR displacement per unit time. Only a RETARD would measure angular displacement in m/s”.
Your problem is that you are reading from text books and trying to argue with someone who has studied it formally as part of an engineering program.
There is no reason whatsoever that angular velocity cannot be measured in meters per second. I have laid out the proof to you twice and rather than rebut the evidence all you can do is have a tantrum.
Angular displacement, radians, and the length of a circumference are all related. A radial line turning through 57+ degrees turns one radian. On the circumference through which the 57+ degrees are applied, metres can be applied just as easily.
A circle with radius 5 metres has a circumference of 2piR = 6.28 x 5 metres = 31.4 metres. 1 radian = length of radius = 5 metres.
Divide circumference by 5 metres = 6.28 radians. The radius can be fitted into the circumference 6.28 x.
Half a circle = 3.14 radians.
Hmmmm…3.14 = pi. The radius can be fitted into the semi-circle 3.14x.
So we measured from x = 5, y = 0 on circle along circumference by 1 radian = 5 metres. Now we take the angle between the radial line at 5 metres and the x-axis and we know it has to be an angle of 57.29 degrees.
So we start the radial line at the x-axis moving at 57.29 degrees per second. That’s one radian per second on a circumference with radius 5 metres.
It’s also 5 metres per second along the circumference, because 1 radian = 5 metres. Therefore, the angular velocity of a particle or a body moving along the circumference is moving at 1 radian/sec or 5 metres/sec.
It’s amusing how you get so hung up on words like rectilinear/curvilinear, and angular/linear. They are all the same kind of motion except one is along a straight line and the other along a curved line.
Do you think that because a body is moving along a curve rather than a straight line that the distance it covers at a certain velocity is any different?
It will probably blow you away to hear that straight lines on the Earth are all curves of one degree or another. Or at least, parts of curves.
Gordon sputters:
“Its amusing how you get so hung up on words like rectilinear/curvilinear, and angular/linear. They are all the same kind of motion except one is along a straight line and the other along a curved line.”
What is amusing is you toot your own horn above, bragging about your “formal” education, when you completely misunderstand curvilinear translation. Tesla understood it, but you STILL don’t get it. A simple concept like curvilinear translation, something a first year engineering student would understand, you don’t get. You even have trouble understanding what “orientation” means. Incredible!
Question does the moon have an unequal balance of mass, which causes the Moon to be tidally locked?
Or I know it’s claimed to be the case, my question is does anyone dispute this claim?
And follow up question is if the moon has unequal balance of mass and it’s spins, what is the result something with unequal mass which spins?
did this guy rotate on his axes ?
https://i.postimg.cc/6qX0Knp2/unnamed.gif
Hint – ʎǝs ɥǝ pᴉp
Yup. Axis is around his waist and horizontal to Earth’s gravity.
Similar to a gymnast doing a flip or flipping off diving board into a pool. In either case there is center of mass in which one spinning or rotating around.
But one do similar thing with motorcycle, and that would rotating but driver not spinning on his axis. Or center mass probably below his seat.
People that believe “rotating on an axis” is determined from “the stars” probably would believe so.
But, someone that understands orbital motion would know better….
‘Yup, Axis is around his waist and horizontal to Earth’s gravity.’.
But his waist is orbiting, just like the Moon!
The nonspinners always chose an arbitrary object and point of view that the moon doesn’t spin relative to it or to them and the whole array of idiotic analogies to boot .
but If you lived on the moon and had no capability to see any other object in the universe , you would not be able to observe any other motion except the one – your own spinning, and that’s what you would see.
Eben, does a racehorse rotate on its axis?
The answer is either “yes” or “no”.
eben…”you would not be able to observe any other motion except the one your own spinning, and thats what you would see”.
How do you notice the Earth is rotating about its axis? You look at the stars/planets throughout the night and see Earth’s rotation relative to them. You can tell by the orientation of the Earth’s polar axis how it is rotating and oriented.
If you were on the Moon and observing the stars, you would not see the same effect. If you were on the near side facing the Earth, you’d always see the Earth. And, you would only see the stars behind and to the side of the Earth.
It would become obvious that the Moon is not rotating on its axis.
‘How do you notice the Earth is rotating about its axis? You look at the stars/planets throughout the night and see Earth’s rotation relative to them. You can tell by the orientation of the Earth’s polar axis how it is rotating and oriented.’
Yup, next apply the same test to the Moon:
‘If you were on the Moon and observing the stars, you would not see the same effect. ‘
Yes, yes of course you would!
“If you were on the near side facing the Earth, you’d always see the Earth. And, you would only see the stars behind and to the side of the Earth.”
So what? We were talking about the stars.
You have long ago lost the argument Gordon, now posting things that make little sense.
nate…as I look up in the night sky, I orient myself with Polaris, the North star. It’s in the Little Dipper. The Big Dipper (Ursa Major) APPEARS to rotate around Polaris so I can check where the BD is in the sky from early evening till early morning. I can see Earth’s horizon sweep across the constellations.
If you are on the Moon facing the Earth, you won’t see any of that. Your horizon will be constant and not sweeping past anything. However, your field of vision will see the back ground stars appear to sweep along the orbital plane, EVERY 28 DAYS.
Whereas the Earth’s horizon sweeps the stars every 24 hours, the Moon view behind Earth sweeps past the stars every 28 days.
It’s an entirely different scan with a different view. And it’s not due to the Moon rotating about its axis, it is purely due to the Moon orbiting the Earth.
Point is you proposed a test to see that the Earth is rotating.
The Moon passes YOUR test! It must also be rotating.
But you refuse to follow the logic of that.
Not sure why.
nate…”Point is you proposed a test to see that the Earth is rotating.
The Moon passes YOUR test!”
No it doesn’t. My test for the Earth was that an observer viewing from the direction of the Sun would see the Earth showing different faces every day for 365 days. The Moon shows the same face every day for 28 days.
Not the same.
I have also explained the situation which you refuse to acknowledge or rebut. All points along a radial line through the Moon are turning in concentric circles. That may seem trivial to you but it is the crux of the problem.
If the Moon was rotating locally, all those points, including the near face, would be rotating about the axis, hence crossing the concentric circles, as with the Earth.
They are not but they offer the illusion that they are.
Your own brain is socking it to you, Nate, and you are the puppet on the string to its illusion-creating machinery.
nate…this is a tricky problem and it involves the same illusion that causes humans on Earth to see the Sun rising, moving across the sky, then setting.
To get around the illusion you must do some reasoning which I have already laid out.
If you have a radial line from Earth’s centre going right trough the Moon, entering the same-side face, passing through its centre, then out the dark side, you need to focus on the portion of the line within the Moon.
That radial line will complete one orbit in 28 days. Meantime, each particle along the portion of the line within the Moon MUST move in concentric circles wrt to every other particle along the liner.
There is no getting around that. If the same side of the Moon is always pointed to the Earth’s centre, every point along that radial line is turning in concentric circles.
If all points are moving in concentric circles they can never cross over any other circle. If there was rotation about the Moon’s axis THEY WOULD HAVE TO CROSS OVER OTHER CIRCLES.
For example, consider the point on the near face right where the radial line cuts it. In order for that point to rotate about the axis, which is on an inner concentric circle, it would have to cut through every other concentric circle to reach the halfway point on the dark side. Then it would have to cut through them all again to get back to the start point.
The Earth does that 365 times during its orbit of the Sun. Consider the same radial line from the Sun through the Earth on the Greenwich Meridian. The point on the meridian at the Equator where it meets the radial line moves away from it then rotates through 360 degrees about the Earth’s axis.
In doing so, it exposes all its faces to the Sun. There is no way the Moon can rotate on its axis without exposing all its faces.
“If all points are moving in concentric circles they can never cross over any other circle. ”
True.
“If there was rotation about the Moon’s axis THEY WOULD HAVE TO CROSS OVER OTHER CIRCLES.”
No, because we do not always see the same face.
There is rotation about an axis tilted 6 degrees to the orbital axis. The rotation angular velocity around this axis is constant.
While the Orbital angular velocity is not constant because of the elliptical orbit.
Both of those effects give the librations that we see.
There is no other way to explain it other than the rotation around its axis.
But feel free to propose another mechanism.
Now, just imagine if the axial tilt was 40 degrees or more but we still had synchronous rotation.
What would we see? We would mostly not see the same face of the Moon.
We would see on one day, the North pole of the Moon titlted down toward us 40 degrees.
Lets say there was a LARGE crater directly to the right of the North Pole on that day.
Now 7 days later, we would see that crater is now directly ABOVE the N pole.
In other words we would directly see the rotation around the axis.
Then we would see the south pole of the Moon tilted up toward us, and the craters rotating around this axis very clearly.
The rotation around an axis would be quite obvious and impossible to deny.
nate…”There is rotation about an axis tilted 6 degrees to the orbital axis. The rotation angular velocity around this axis is constant”.
Get out those coins and prove it. Mark one coin to represent the near face. Hold the mark against the other coin and try to rotate the mark through 360 degrees while moving it around the other coin.
While you’re at it, draw 3 lines on the coin parallel to the tangent line with one through the centre. As you move the coin around the stationary coin, watch those lines retain the same orientation relative to a radial line turning with them.
If the coin was rotating about its axis, those lines would not remain perpendicular to the radial line. They would turn around it.
” As you move the coin around the stationary coin, watch those lines retain the same orientation relative to a radial line turning with them.
If the coin was rotating about its axis, those lines would not remain perpendicular to the radial line. They would turn around it.”
I see. You think rotation must be relative to ‘the radial line’.
The radial line is itself rotating.
So, by saying ‘rotating’ means rotating relative to ‘the radial line’, you are using a reference frame that is rotating.
So of course the Moon is ‘not rotating’ in this rotating frame.
But then it IS rotating in the non-rotating frame of the stars.
The coins have nothing to do with explaining libration of the real Moon.
You are ignoring this fact and pretending it doesnt matter.
Silly Billy. Everyone knows the moon is only five miles away and MUCH too tiny to live on.
Ventilation and circulation are additionally vital
factors for keeping mould and pests to a minimal.
Avoid dangerous organic fertilizer and disrupting your routine.
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs & household LEDs are one of many
many.